Set your reputation
    In the last few years, the public sensitivity toward abuse of animals has increased dramatically, witness the outrage against footballer Michael Vick. People like dogs and they don’t want to see pets or any animals abused.
    When Adams County Justice Court Judge Patricia Dunmore dismissed the case against two men charged with keeping dogs for dog fighting, she made a grievous legal error and did so with intent.
    Neighbors in the LaGrange area reported to the sheriff’s department that two men were raising dogs for fighting. The deputies responded and arrested Cornelius Baldwin, 26, and Lewis Jackson, 18, after finding five chained and bloody dogs. The animals had a large number of open and healing wounds from fighting. There was a dog-fighting stick and medicines to treat those wounds on premises. Deputies took pictures of the abused and injured animals and gathered enough evidence to show in court that the two bad guys should go to trial. The deputies also seized the dogs (as is permissible by law), so that the animals could receive proper medical treatment. Unfortunately, at least one of the dogs died as a direct result of infection (the dog had another dog’s tooth implanted in its jaw line.)
    When a responding deputy testified of what he had seen, Judge Dunmore said that deputy could not provide expert testimony of the occurrence of a crime. Of course, as Judge Dunmore knows, evidence submitted in any case does not require any expert testimony. Simple inexpert testimony from a lay person, bystander, man-on-the-street, any person so sworn to testify can be submitted and accepted. When Dunmore tried to discount Deputy Sander’s testimony, she was trying to mislead the public. Dunmore also indicated that the evidence was not substantial enough to bind the defendants over for trial. Yet the standard of proof in a preliminary hearing does not have to be “beyond a reasonable doubt,” only indicative that a crime has been committed. The evidence presented was sufficient to show that a crime had been committed. Further, when one of the defendants said his dogs were hunting dogs only, the physical evidence on the scene and the nature of the dogs’ wounds showed that the dogs were being used for fighting. In a sense, the defendant was so incredible that his testimony actually buttressed the prosecution’s case.
    When Dunmore voiced her dismissal of the charges, she also said the prosecution did not show any dog fighting had occurred. For sure, Judge Dunmore is a trained and Mississippi attorney, as well as being a judge. She is no newcomer to the law. She is not an ignorant layperson. She knows the score. And she knows that Mississippi law, specifically 97-41-19, says that any person who ‘owns a dog for the purpose of a fight shall be guilty of a felony and subject to a fine of $1,000-$5,000 and a fine of up to one year in jail.’ That means the prosecution does not have to show a fight occurred, only that the owner and keepers of the dogs had engaged in activity to prepare for such a fight to be found guilty of a felony. Clearly, the evidence showed that. And the two bums should have been bound over to the grand jury or a trial set.
    Dunmore erred. And Dunmore did not tell the truth as she knew it to be. Why she decided to cover for two bad guys is unknown. She provided no additional explanation.
    There are few times in life when what we do marks our career or sets our reputation for good or bad for almost time immemorial. Unfortunately for Dunmore, this was one of those times. And for the rest of Dunmore’s judicial and legal career, she will be known as the protector of criminal dog fighters, a woman who puts the safety and welfare of animals at risk.

Update: Sheriff Chuck Mayfield’s office has turned over the file to D.A. Ronnie Harper. Harper is likely to present the case to a grand jury in the next few months.