The Unfair Trial~Our View
page is being updated
There are many people that hate us and there are many people that support us. We knew from day 1 we would not receive a fair trial, but I was determined to take my chance that JUST MAYBE it would happen. I am not saying we didn't get a fair trial because we were found guilty, I am saying we did not get a fair trial because the verdict was based on only circumstantial evidence and prejudicial evidence, and I am listing it all here. You then can decide if you think the trial was fair.
One of the big reasons we also feel we did not get a fair trial is the pure fact that we were charged for something we did not even do. Any prosecutor that is doing his job to stop crime would never had charged us but had charged Bruce LaHue with animal abuse. Yes, my house was a mess, and that is the other aspect of it, since when is cleaning up after an act of God a crime? There are no laws that say you have to clean it up within a specific time, that you are not allowed to do it yourself, etc. So we felt that the 5 of us cleaning it would be better as it was our stuff, stuff we wanted to try to save. Then there was Randell who had a full time job, Josh and Candace were in school full time, and I am disabled and homeschool Parker. We all had busy lives in addition to running a rescue full time and then having this hellacious flooded basement to deal with. The basement itself should had been a situation that these officials called in help for us, not to charge us with having a full size basement that just the month before had 8 inches of water in it, the very basement that I went to Repair Affair, an organization in Harrison County Indiana that helps disabled people with repairs to their home. Repair Affair told me they would not do anything to help us with the basement, they referred me to Sherlock Homes of Clarksville Indiana. They told me they would help us with the basement but they were done in my area, but if they could get back out that way would contact me. You see I sought help for a potential disaster (in which did happen just months later), but yet I was charged, convicted and jailed for something I tried to prevent happening, tried to clean up after it happened all while trying to live somewhat of a normal life throughout it. When Bruce LaHue, Gary Gilley, Jessica Houchins and Ray Saylor walked into my house that day, I told them excuse the mess in here (living room/kitchen) we were cleaning up a flooded basement. The very minute Ray Saylor yelled at me and said "You can't use that excuse this time!!!!" I KNEW this was a set up, it had nothing to do with the animals, had nothing to do with the condition of the house, the yard, etc, it had ALL to do with retaliation because I filed a tort claim against Bruce LaHue (in which CPS, Gilley and Saylor were ALL mentioned) around March 2 of that same year. You see, a tort claim is a notice of intent to sue. I, at that point had until January 6, 2012 to sue CPS and Ray Saylor and until January 13, 2012 to sue Bruce LaHue, this raid happened November 17, 2011.
The other reason we feel it was more of retaliatory than any actual cause is because the death records STATE how these cats died. Bruce LaHue ADMITTED to NOT giving Pumpkin her medication for 5 days. Garfield was ordered medication on 11/18/11 because he apparently started coming down with the URI too. Dr. Smith of Ramsey Indiana states that LaHue did NOT pick up the medication that he ordered for these cats that had a URI on 11/18/11 until 11/22/11. I personally feel, since I know how a URI affects cats, I believe he did not give the medication I gave him, nor the medication Dr. Smith ordered to make sure these cats got sick and sicker. The reason is, if a cat has a URI which is a head cold, when a cat can't smell it won't eat, if a cat doesn't it, it will lose weight, and can die. Pumpkin was an 8 week old kitten that did leave here with signs of a URI, she did not have any signs earlier that day, but I told Missy Graham (LaHue's assistant) that my vet said to give any and all cats that start showing signs of the URI the Clavamox. Kenya had her own and my vet gave me an extra bottle for all the cats as I had ordered L Lysine to put all the cats on to prevent the others from getting it. Pumpkin was 1 of 4 - 7 week old kittens that had eye drainage by they time they were taken out of the house the night of the raid. Garfield got sick while at animal control, because the photos they have of him in the house pretty much show he was fine. He got so sick that on the 12th day they had to euthanize him, you see, instead of medicating him on 11/18/11 as Dr. Smith ordered, Garfield was not medicated until 11/22/11 and then missed his meds on 11/28/11 and 11/29/11 and then was euthanized on 11/30/11. Sagwa who was not sick had a seizure on 11/29/11, this was Parkers beloved cat, one he had for 7 years, she was refused vet care for this seizure. Missy Graham was advised by Dr. Smith and LaHue, if she continues to seize for 30 minutes to euthanize her. So you see, she had plenty of time to receive vet care (Valium) to stop the seizure. But that was not their plan, dead cats is what got the charges, so they had this planned out. At this point Pumpkin, Sagwa and Garfield died/euthanized. On 12/14/11 Abbigayle (according to their records) was starved to death for 8 days. On 12/16/11, LaHue's probable cause affidavit for our arrest says "despite aggressive treatment the cats died". NONE of my cats in LaHue's care received ANY aggressive treatment and Dr. Smith testified to that during the trial and during the deposition.
To further explain their ploy to make me look like an abuser..On 11/21/11 Dr. Lovejoy who is the State Veterinarian examined the animals. The dogs all rated normal body condition scores, but the cats, half of them scored 1-2 which is emaciated and no cat scored within normal range. None of my cats were emaciated when they left me and some were overweight. But like I have explained, if they have an URI and are not treated will not eat, you don't eat...you lose weight.. This would explain why LaHue did not give the $100 worth of medication I gave him to ASSURE my cats would be cared for properly while I was fighting to get them back, and why he waited until AFTER Lovejoy saw the animals. It also explains why only 2 animals had any recorded weights (which were the first 2). Dr. Smith first said the scale was broken, then changed his story. But yet, between animal control and having family scales and a local Wal Mart NO ONE could produce a scale to weigh these animals. But yet they can use 0 weights and charge someone based on a state veterinarian's body condition scores 4 days after they were taken from the owner? How can this even be legal, there is no telling what a person with a vendetta against you can do to your animals (or property) while in it's custody.
Not to mention, they had no intake photos of Pumpkin to provide to the jury, but that was still allowed to be part of the case. LaHue said he had stepped out of the room when they were examining her, but yet no one else could take her photo?
That covers why we felt this was out of retaliation, we know I was set up, all you have to do is read thoroughly about the information we have about Jeri Warren, we believe we were railroaded simply because I stood up for my family and our animals. We should never had been charged let alone convicted, animal control should never of been awarded my animals.
Below is how a criminal trial is done. Above is direct evidence against them, however, they used circumstantial evidence against my husband and me to get a conviction, even after both Smith and Lovejoy were asked "Can you say that the Lee's did anything to cause the death of these cats?" Smith said no with about a second delay. Lovejoy had a real hard time answering it, she hee hawed, got antsy, with the impression of, I am supposed to say yes, but if I do I will be lying, do I tell the truth, she eventually said no. To me when asked "Can you say the Lee's did anything to cause the death of these cats?" to me that covers the condition of the house too. Both these vets said they cannot say anything we did caused the death of Pumpkin, Sagwa, Garfield and Abbigayle. I know we did not and I know who is responsible, why if the MAIN witnesses that are used for the state say the defense couldn't of done it, why were we then convicted? Does that fall upon a crooked trial, crooked prosecutor? I don't know, but I do know it was wrong, the biggest wrong is the fact I had vet bills to prove all the vetting I did in 2011 and the jury was not even allowed to see one shred of it, that was my biggest defense.
They now report the cats including cats that died in June 2012 and November 2013 died of the conditions of the house, say Zim, Parker's 6 year old rooster died of old age, Silkie chickens have a lifespan up to 14 years, they had no clue how old Zim was. LaHue's story has changed 3 or 4 times since it first hit the media, he can't even keep the same story. They also report the cats have "issues" now, however these cats were happy, well adjusted animals in our care. I couldn't of asked for better or sweeter cats ever. Their videos show how scared these cats were of these people. We have Tinkerbelle here with us, she hid, she has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder badly. She hides when people come into our house now, she freaks out when anyone she does not know in my house has boots on. Tinkerbelle has lived in this house for 10 years and has NEVER been this way before the raid. She also does not leave my side and stays upstairs most of the time now, where as before she roamed the house.
The charges of child neglect are actually on Josh, who is our oldest, who was almost 19 at the time of the raid. Gilley said the day of the trial, up until the week of the trial he didn't know that another child lived in the house. Gilley testified in court that Parker's and Candace's room were on the main floor, but yet we were charged with making them sleep in the basement in a bed next to live electrical cords laying in or near water, but we were still convicted of child neglect. They didn't even show this photo, but in the photo, the floor is partially dried. They claim in all their affidavits there was 2 inches of water in the basement but the pictures show a partially dried and very dirty floor, but no "inches" of water. Some parts of the floor were wet, but any puddles were in the low corners of the basement and that does not constitute "the floor" or "the basement". The dirt on the kitchen floor that was played up as feces by the prosecutor was just a dirty floor I had not mopped yet due to not all the stuff had been cleaned up and put up and some was still on the floor, this was stuff we had brought up from the basement that needed to be put in storage or the kids rooms, I chose to give them time to figure out where to put this stuff, that was used against me. The fact that I chose education over clutter was actually used against me, and helping Jeri Warren not get evicted was used against me. Compassion is now apparently a crime. I was told by CPS I should of stayed home and cleaned my house and did my childrens chores before taking Josh to the ER and Kenya to the vet on 11/14/11 and I should never had helped Warren while I still had a flooded basement and messy house. I felt my house work will still be there, but my son and cats healths might not be and I would had felt horrible if someone got evicted when I chose to just stay home and do an hour or 2 of house work when I could get it done the next day.
Now that it is "over" (waiting on the appeal), I do not regret not taking any of the plea deals. I can still say what I have said since day 1, I (and my husband) am innocent. They just convicted and prisoned an innocent person, I can deal with that. Had I pled guilty to something I did not do, harming 2 things I hold closets to my heart, my kids and animals, I would never had been able to live with myself knowing I pled guilty to something I did not do just to prevent me from going to prison. HOWEVER, if they would had thrown a plea deal at me that my animals will come home ONLY if I pled guilty I would had done it in a heartbeat, only because I would of been saving the lives of my furbabies.
One of the big reasons we also feel we did not get a fair trial is the pure fact that we were charged for something we did not even do. Any prosecutor that is doing his job to stop crime would never had charged us but had charged Bruce LaHue with animal abuse. Yes, my house was a mess, and that is the other aspect of it, since when is cleaning up after an act of God a crime? There are no laws that say you have to clean it up within a specific time, that you are not allowed to do it yourself, etc. So we felt that the 5 of us cleaning it would be better as it was our stuff, stuff we wanted to try to save. Then there was Randell who had a full time job, Josh and Candace were in school full time, and I am disabled and homeschool Parker. We all had busy lives in addition to running a rescue full time and then having this hellacious flooded basement to deal with. The basement itself should had been a situation that these officials called in help for us, not to charge us with having a full size basement that just the month before had 8 inches of water in it, the very basement that I went to Repair Affair, an organization in Harrison County Indiana that helps disabled people with repairs to their home. Repair Affair told me they would not do anything to help us with the basement, they referred me to Sherlock Homes of Clarksville Indiana. They told me they would help us with the basement but they were done in my area, but if they could get back out that way would contact me. You see I sought help for a potential disaster (in which did happen just months later), but yet I was charged, convicted and jailed for something I tried to prevent happening, tried to clean up after it happened all while trying to live somewhat of a normal life throughout it. When Bruce LaHue, Gary Gilley, Jessica Houchins and Ray Saylor walked into my house that day, I told them excuse the mess in here (living room/kitchen) we were cleaning up a flooded basement. The very minute Ray Saylor yelled at me and said "You can't use that excuse this time!!!!" I KNEW this was a set up, it had nothing to do with the animals, had nothing to do with the condition of the house, the yard, etc, it had ALL to do with retaliation because I filed a tort claim against Bruce LaHue (in which CPS, Gilley and Saylor were ALL mentioned) around March 2 of that same year. You see, a tort claim is a notice of intent to sue. I, at that point had until January 6, 2012 to sue CPS and Ray Saylor and until January 13, 2012 to sue Bruce LaHue, this raid happened November 17, 2011.
The other reason we feel it was more of retaliatory than any actual cause is because the death records STATE how these cats died. Bruce LaHue ADMITTED to NOT giving Pumpkin her medication for 5 days. Garfield was ordered medication on 11/18/11 because he apparently started coming down with the URI too. Dr. Smith of Ramsey Indiana states that LaHue did NOT pick up the medication that he ordered for these cats that had a URI on 11/18/11 until 11/22/11. I personally feel, since I know how a URI affects cats, I believe he did not give the medication I gave him, nor the medication Dr. Smith ordered to make sure these cats got sick and sicker. The reason is, if a cat has a URI which is a head cold, when a cat can't smell it won't eat, if a cat doesn't it, it will lose weight, and can die. Pumpkin was an 8 week old kitten that did leave here with signs of a URI, she did not have any signs earlier that day, but I told Missy Graham (LaHue's assistant) that my vet said to give any and all cats that start showing signs of the URI the Clavamox. Kenya had her own and my vet gave me an extra bottle for all the cats as I had ordered L Lysine to put all the cats on to prevent the others from getting it. Pumpkin was 1 of 4 - 7 week old kittens that had eye drainage by they time they were taken out of the house the night of the raid. Garfield got sick while at animal control, because the photos they have of him in the house pretty much show he was fine. He got so sick that on the 12th day they had to euthanize him, you see, instead of medicating him on 11/18/11 as Dr. Smith ordered, Garfield was not medicated until 11/22/11 and then missed his meds on 11/28/11 and 11/29/11 and then was euthanized on 11/30/11. Sagwa who was not sick had a seizure on 11/29/11, this was Parkers beloved cat, one he had for 7 years, she was refused vet care for this seizure. Missy Graham was advised by Dr. Smith and LaHue, if she continues to seize for 30 minutes to euthanize her. So you see, she had plenty of time to receive vet care (Valium) to stop the seizure. But that was not their plan, dead cats is what got the charges, so they had this planned out. At this point Pumpkin, Sagwa and Garfield died/euthanized. On 12/14/11 Abbigayle (according to their records) was starved to death for 8 days. On 12/16/11, LaHue's probable cause affidavit for our arrest says "despite aggressive treatment the cats died". NONE of my cats in LaHue's care received ANY aggressive treatment and Dr. Smith testified to that during the trial and during the deposition.
To further explain their ploy to make me look like an abuser..On 11/21/11 Dr. Lovejoy who is the State Veterinarian examined the animals. The dogs all rated normal body condition scores, but the cats, half of them scored 1-2 which is emaciated and no cat scored within normal range. None of my cats were emaciated when they left me and some were overweight. But like I have explained, if they have an URI and are not treated will not eat, you don't eat...you lose weight.. This would explain why LaHue did not give the $100 worth of medication I gave him to ASSURE my cats would be cared for properly while I was fighting to get them back, and why he waited until AFTER Lovejoy saw the animals. It also explains why only 2 animals had any recorded weights (which were the first 2). Dr. Smith first said the scale was broken, then changed his story. But yet, between animal control and having family scales and a local Wal Mart NO ONE could produce a scale to weigh these animals. But yet they can use 0 weights and charge someone based on a state veterinarian's body condition scores 4 days after they were taken from the owner? How can this even be legal, there is no telling what a person with a vendetta against you can do to your animals (or property) while in it's custody.
Not to mention, they had no intake photos of Pumpkin to provide to the jury, but that was still allowed to be part of the case. LaHue said he had stepped out of the room when they were examining her, but yet no one else could take her photo?
That covers why we felt this was out of retaliation, we know I was set up, all you have to do is read thoroughly about the information we have about Jeri Warren, we believe we were railroaded simply because I stood up for my family and our animals. We should never had been charged let alone convicted, animal control should never of been awarded my animals.
Below is how a criminal trial is done. Above is direct evidence against them, however, they used circumstantial evidence against my husband and me to get a conviction, even after both Smith and Lovejoy were asked "Can you say that the Lee's did anything to cause the death of these cats?" Smith said no with about a second delay. Lovejoy had a real hard time answering it, she hee hawed, got antsy, with the impression of, I am supposed to say yes, but if I do I will be lying, do I tell the truth, she eventually said no. To me when asked "Can you say the Lee's did anything to cause the death of these cats?" to me that covers the condition of the house too. Both these vets said they cannot say anything we did caused the death of Pumpkin, Sagwa, Garfield and Abbigayle. I know we did not and I know who is responsible, why if the MAIN witnesses that are used for the state say the defense couldn't of done it, why were we then convicted? Does that fall upon a crooked trial, crooked prosecutor? I don't know, but I do know it was wrong, the biggest wrong is the fact I had vet bills to prove all the vetting I did in 2011 and the jury was not even allowed to see one shred of it, that was my biggest defense.
They now report the cats including cats that died in June 2012 and November 2013 died of the conditions of the house, say Zim, Parker's 6 year old rooster died of old age, Silkie chickens have a lifespan up to 14 years, they had no clue how old Zim was. LaHue's story has changed 3 or 4 times since it first hit the media, he can't even keep the same story. They also report the cats have "issues" now, however these cats were happy, well adjusted animals in our care. I couldn't of asked for better or sweeter cats ever. Their videos show how scared these cats were of these people. We have Tinkerbelle here with us, she hid, she has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder badly. She hides when people come into our house now, she freaks out when anyone she does not know in my house has boots on. Tinkerbelle has lived in this house for 10 years and has NEVER been this way before the raid. She also does not leave my side and stays upstairs most of the time now, where as before she roamed the house.
The charges of child neglect are actually on Josh, who is our oldest, who was almost 19 at the time of the raid. Gilley said the day of the trial, up until the week of the trial he didn't know that another child lived in the house. Gilley testified in court that Parker's and Candace's room were on the main floor, but yet we were charged with making them sleep in the basement in a bed next to live electrical cords laying in or near water, but we were still convicted of child neglect. They didn't even show this photo, but in the photo, the floor is partially dried. They claim in all their affidavits there was 2 inches of water in the basement but the pictures show a partially dried and very dirty floor, but no "inches" of water. Some parts of the floor were wet, but any puddles were in the low corners of the basement and that does not constitute "the floor" or "the basement". The dirt on the kitchen floor that was played up as feces by the prosecutor was just a dirty floor I had not mopped yet due to not all the stuff had been cleaned up and put up and some was still on the floor, this was stuff we had brought up from the basement that needed to be put in storage or the kids rooms, I chose to give them time to figure out where to put this stuff, that was used against me. The fact that I chose education over clutter was actually used against me, and helping Jeri Warren not get evicted was used against me. Compassion is now apparently a crime. I was told by CPS I should of stayed home and cleaned my house and did my childrens chores before taking Josh to the ER and Kenya to the vet on 11/14/11 and I should never had helped Warren while I still had a flooded basement and messy house. I felt my house work will still be there, but my son and cats healths might not be and I would had felt horrible if someone got evicted when I chose to just stay home and do an hour or 2 of house work when I could get it done the next day.
Now that it is "over" (waiting on the appeal), I do not regret not taking any of the plea deals. I can still say what I have said since day 1, I (and my husband) am innocent. They just convicted and prisoned an innocent person, I can deal with that. Had I pled guilty to something I did not do, harming 2 things I hold closets to my heart, my kids and animals, I would never had been able to live with myself knowing I pled guilty to something I did not do just to prevent me from going to prison. HOWEVER, if they would had thrown a plea deal at me that my animals will come home ONLY if I pled guilty I would had done it in a heartbeat, only because I would of been saving the lives of my furbabies.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).
Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. If the witness claims they saw the crime take place, this is considered direct evidence. For instance, a witness saying that the defendant stabbed the victim is direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether or not evidence is circumstantial.
Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually circumstantial evidence. A forensic scientist who testifies that ballistics proves the defendant’s firearm killed the victim provides circumstantial evidence from which the defendant’s guilt can be inferred. (Note that an inference of guilt could be incorrect if the person who actually fired the weapon was somebody else.)
On the other hand, the additional circumstantial evidence of the defendant's fingerprint on the trigger would dovetail with this piece to provide corroborating evidence.
On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).
Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. If the witness claims they saw the crime take place, this is considered direct evidence. For instance, a witness saying that the defendant stabbed the victim is direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether or not evidence is circumstantial.
Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually circumstantial evidence. A forensic scientist who testifies that ballistics proves the defendant’s firearm killed the victim provides circumstantial evidence from which the defendant’s guilt can be inferred. (Note that an inference of guilt could be incorrect if the person who actually fired the weapon was somebody else.)
On the other hand, the additional circumstantial evidence of the defendant's fingerprint on the trigger would dovetail with this piece to provide corroborating evidence.
Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Notes (Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1932; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
The case law recognizes that certain circumstances call for the exclusion of evidence which is of unquestioned relevance. These circumstances entail risks which range all the way from inducing decision on a purely emotional basis, at one extreme, to nothing more harmful than merely wasting time, at the other extreme. Situations in this area call for balancing the probative value of and need for the evidence against the harm likely to result from its admission. Slough, Relevancy Unraveled, 5 Kan. L. Rev. 1, 12–15 (1956); Trautman, Logical or Legal Relevancy—A Conflict in Theory, 5 Van. L. Rev. 385, 392 (1952); McCormick §152, pp. 319–321. The rules which follow in this Article are concrete applications evolved for particular situations. However, they reflect the policies underlying the present rule, which is designed as a guide for the handling of situations for which no specific rules have been formulated.
Exclusion for risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or waste of time, all find ample support in the authorities. “Unfair prejudice” within its context means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.
The rule does not enumerate surprise as a ground for exclusion, in this respect following Wigmore's view of the common law. 6 Wigmore §1849. Cf. McCormick §152, p. 320, n. 29, listing unfair surprise as a ground for exclusion but stating that it is usually “coupled with the danger of prejudice and confusion of issues.” While Uniform Rule 45 incorporates surprise as a ground and is followed in Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–445, surprise is not included in California Evidence Code §352 or New Jersey Rule 4, though both the latter otherwise substantially embody Uniform Rule 45. While it can scarcely be doubted that claims of unfair surprise may still be justified despite procedural requirements of notice and instrumentalities of discovery, the granting of a continuance is a more appropriate remedy than exclusion of the evidence. Tentative Recommendation and a Study Relating to the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Art. VI. Extrinsic Policies Affecting Admissibility), Cal. Law Revision Comm'n, Rep., Rec. & Studies, 612 (1964). Moreover, the impact of a rule excluding evidence on the ground of surprise would be difficult to estimate.
In reaching a decision whether to exclude on grounds of unfair prejudice, consideration should be given to the probable effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of a limiting instruction. See Rule 106 [now 105] and Advisory Committee's Note thereunder. The availability of other means of proof may also be an appropriate factor.
Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment
The language of Rule 403 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
Notes (Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1932; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
The case law recognizes that certain circumstances call for the exclusion of evidence which is of unquestioned relevance. These circumstances entail risks which range all the way from inducing decision on a purely emotional basis, at one extreme, to nothing more harmful than merely wasting time, at the other extreme. Situations in this area call for balancing the probative value of and need for the evidence against the harm likely to result from its admission. Slough, Relevancy Unraveled, 5 Kan. L. Rev. 1, 12–15 (1956); Trautman, Logical or Legal Relevancy—A Conflict in Theory, 5 Van. L. Rev. 385, 392 (1952); McCormick §152, pp. 319–321. The rules which follow in this Article are concrete applications evolved for particular situations. However, they reflect the policies underlying the present rule, which is designed as a guide for the handling of situations for which no specific rules have been formulated.
Exclusion for risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or waste of time, all find ample support in the authorities. “Unfair prejudice” within its context means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.
The rule does not enumerate surprise as a ground for exclusion, in this respect following Wigmore's view of the common law. 6 Wigmore §1849. Cf. McCormick §152, p. 320, n. 29, listing unfair surprise as a ground for exclusion but stating that it is usually “coupled with the danger of prejudice and confusion of issues.” While Uniform Rule 45 incorporates surprise as a ground and is followed in Kansas Code of Civil Procedure §60–445, surprise is not included in California Evidence Code §352 or New Jersey Rule 4, though both the latter otherwise substantially embody Uniform Rule 45. While it can scarcely be doubted that claims of unfair surprise may still be justified despite procedural requirements of notice and instrumentalities of discovery, the granting of a continuance is a more appropriate remedy than exclusion of the evidence. Tentative Recommendation and a Study Relating to the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Art. VI. Extrinsic Policies Affecting Admissibility), Cal. Law Revision Comm'n, Rep., Rec. & Studies, 612 (1964). Moreover, the impact of a rule excluding evidence on the ground of surprise would be difficult to estimate.
In reaching a decision whether to exclude on grounds of unfair prejudice, consideration should be given to the probable effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of a limiting instruction. See Rule 106 [now 105] and Advisory Committee's Note thereunder. The availability of other means of proof may also be an appropriate factor.
Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment
The language of Rule 403 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
Those are the 2 rules in trial that were used against us. Circumstantial falls upon the claim that corner to corner of my house was covered in feces. That is a lie. The alleged photo they showed shows a high traffic area that leads from the living room front door to the back door in the kitchen. In the kitchen along this path is the basement door in which we brought up dirty and wet things that were water logged. I did not mop my floors because not everything was up off the floor and put away on the day of the raid. That is not a crime. At no point was this dark substance ever tested to be feces, but that is all that the prosecutor talked about that it could be. Although they showed the photos of the basement where the floor was still wet with sludge, but the prosecutor harped on no way possible could anything from the basement possibly be tracked to the kitchen even though I said we took it to the washer and/or out the back door if we burned it. The washing machine sits by the back door in the kitchen.
Circumstantial evidence falls upon people saying my house reeked of ammonia. An ammonia test was the ONLY test they did. BUT they did it 6 days after the raid. The score came back a 3. The health department testified against us for the state. When the prosecutor asked him to explain what a 3 would be like the health department said a 3 would be the same air you are breathing in in the court room that very day we all sat there. So then instead of relying on this test to prove they have no evidence that my house had any ammonia level the prosecutor then says "welll they aired out the house". Folks, I have a log cabin, 90% of the interior of my house is wood, I have no carpet and the CPS caseworker told me I had cats peeing on the walls and I would never get that smell out, but now they are saying the ammonia level was so low because I aired out the house.
Circumstantial evidence was used against us on one of the cats. You see, Abbigayle died 27 days into their care, she starved to death, see her death record as proof, no vet care was provided to her, they knew for 8 days she was not eating and just let her starve. Dr. Smith got on the stand trying to say this cat had Panleukopenia. However, that is a bold face lie. He first said no necropsy was done, in court he said one was done and she had Panluek but he does not have the test result, don't know where they went. He did not explain to the jury that any cat in my house would had also contracted Panluek. When I testified I am the one that had to explain what this disease is and what it does and how it affects cats remaining. The prosecutor then asked me if I felt I knew more than Dr. Smith. I told him no I don't but I do know what I am talking about as I am a former vet tech and I do work with cats alot.
Prejudicial evidence used against us was the fact that they claim it cost the county $30,000 to care for my healthy animals. We were forbidden to discuss the tort claim, so could not say we had a lawsuit fighting to get the animals back. They showed photos of more than the 4 cats we were charged for, 1 cat they cut up her face. They showed these intake photos there were allegedly taken the day after the raid, however I do not believe they were taken that soon, I think they were taken about 4 days later. They did not show the photos of the cats during the raid, if you compare the photos, you can see the cats look different and cleaner in the house. They said the cats had feces on them, but if you look at the photos of the cats during the raid and compare to the intake photos, you see no feces on the cats. They also do not look sick in the photos taken during the raid but some are in the intake photos. To me, to prove I did this, I feel you would need to see photos of the animals before they are removed from my home, not after. Anyone can change the date and time on a camera before they take photos.
You see had there been DIRECT evidence MAYBE the verdict would had been not guilty. Direct evidence would had been the stack of vet bills for the year 2011 that would had proved that the cats were spayed and neutered, had Rabies vaccinations as well as my receipt of where I purchased the FVRCP to vaccinate the cats myself, the receipt of where the cats were flea treated, ear mite treated, and checked, etc. The $568 I spent on ALL the cats the 10 days before the raid (including the day before the raid). This stack of vet bills was NOT allowed to be entered into evidence as the judge said "it's hearsay". Then there are those photos taken of the cats AFTER they were removed from my home, the prosecution considered those direct evidence, but they are not, they do not show what the cats looked like while in my house only what they looked like while in animal controls care, animal control can do to my animals anything they want and say it happened in my house. They even showed a cat that did not even belong to us. Why were there not shown any photos of these alleged dying cats while in my care, cats with feces on them? Where are those photos? Where are the photos of the feces on the beds in my house? There are none. It is just to add to the shock value of the messy house, all by an act of God, which is not a crime.
At no point was Coal brought up during this trial, the dog that it was put to me...."Either take the dog back, pay to have him euthanized or pay us $1000 to do exploratory surgery on him". A dog that I think was kicked in his gut to get the judge over the civil case to award the animals to the aco. I fought for a month against the ACO to give me the dog, he refused, then I wanted to have him seen by my vet, I was refused that too, we had to go back to the judge. The judge said if I wanted to have him seen by my vet then so be it, I shall also pay for it, and I did, a tune of $400. He wasn't even one of our personal dogs but belonged to another rescue who dumped him on me.
Circumstantial evidence falls upon people saying my house reeked of ammonia. An ammonia test was the ONLY test they did. BUT they did it 6 days after the raid. The score came back a 3. The health department testified against us for the state. When the prosecutor asked him to explain what a 3 would be like the health department said a 3 would be the same air you are breathing in in the court room that very day we all sat there. So then instead of relying on this test to prove they have no evidence that my house had any ammonia level the prosecutor then says "welll they aired out the house". Folks, I have a log cabin, 90% of the interior of my house is wood, I have no carpet and the CPS caseworker told me I had cats peeing on the walls and I would never get that smell out, but now they are saying the ammonia level was so low because I aired out the house.
Circumstantial evidence was used against us on one of the cats. You see, Abbigayle died 27 days into their care, she starved to death, see her death record as proof, no vet care was provided to her, they knew for 8 days she was not eating and just let her starve. Dr. Smith got on the stand trying to say this cat had Panleukopenia. However, that is a bold face lie. He first said no necropsy was done, in court he said one was done and she had Panluek but he does not have the test result, don't know where they went. He did not explain to the jury that any cat in my house would had also contracted Panluek. When I testified I am the one that had to explain what this disease is and what it does and how it affects cats remaining. The prosecutor then asked me if I felt I knew more than Dr. Smith. I told him no I don't but I do know what I am talking about as I am a former vet tech and I do work with cats alot.
Prejudicial evidence used against us was the fact that they claim it cost the county $30,000 to care for my healthy animals. We were forbidden to discuss the tort claim, so could not say we had a lawsuit fighting to get the animals back. They showed photos of more than the 4 cats we were charged for, 1 cat they cut up her face. They showed these intake photos there were allegedly taken the day after the raid, however I do not believe they were taken that soon, I think they were taken about 4 days later. They did not show the photos of the cats during the raid, if you compare the photos, you can see the cats look different and cleaner in the house. They said the cats had feces on them, but if you look at the photos of the cats during the raid and compare to the intake photos, you see no feces on the cats. They also do not look sick in the photos taken during the raid but some are in the intake photos. To me, to prove I did this, I feel you would need to see photos of the animals before they are removed from my home, not after. Anyone can change the date and time on a camera before they take photos.
You see had there been DIRECT evidence MAYBE the verdict would had been not guilty. Direct evidence would had been the stack of vet bills for the year 2011 that would had proved that the cats were spayed and neutered, had Rabies vaccinations as well as my receipt of where I purchased the FVRCP to vaccinate the cats myself, the receipt of where the cats were flea treated, ear mite treated, and checked, etc. The $568 I spent on ALL the cats the 10 days before the raid (including the day before the raid). This stack of vet bills was NOT allowed to be entered into evidence as the judge said "it's hearsay". Then there are those photos taken of the cats AFTER they were removed from my home, the prosecution considered those direct evidence, but they are not, they do not show what the cats looked like while in my house only what they looked like while in animal controls care, animal control can do to my animals anything they want and say it happened in my house. They even showed a cat that did not even belong to us. Why were there not shown any photos of these alleged dying cats while in my care, cats with feces on them? Where are those photos? Where are the photos of the feces on the beds in my house? There are none. It is just to add to the shock value of the messy house, all by an act of God, which is not a crime.
At no point was Coal brought up during this trial, the dog that it was put to me...."Either take the dog back, pay to have him euthanized or pay us $1000 to do exploratory surgery on him". A dog that I think was kicked in his gut to get the judge over the civil case to award the animals to the aco. I fought for a month against the ACO to give me the dog, he refused, then I wanted to have him seen by my vet, I was refused that too, we had to go back to the judge. The judge said if I wanted to have him seen by my vet then so be it, I shall also pay for it, and I did, a tune of $400. He wasn't even one of our personal dogs but belonged to another rescue who dumped him on me.
One of the biggest things of this entire ordeal is the stories in the media that has changed. First the ACO said I was a hoarder posing as a rescue, then months later he said I just was not able to handle that many animals. Which 43 animals among 5 people is not a lot. We had only 3 dogs, dogs are harder to care for than chickens and cats. Everyone wants to think I was so overwhelmed with 34 cats, but only a few people actually get it and understand. Cats are a breeze to take care of. Try dealing with protecting your adult son and your familys personal belongings in 8 inches of water. Why do very, very few people ever say "she was so overwhelmed trying to clean up the flooded basement". Because no one wants to believe that we were set up, railroaded and lied about. But if I had 5 cats spayed the month before and all of the sudden these cats have a body condition score of 1 35 days later, does that not put questions in your mind?