General Discussion

alp227

(32,024 posts) Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:59 PM Jun 2014

Felony conviction over Oakland lawyer's 93 cats

(06-20) 11:29 PDT OAKLAND -- An Oakland attorney has been convicted of felony animal cruelty for failing to properly care for nearly 100 cats in her home.

Jan Van Dusen, 62, was found guilty Thursday by Judge Gloria Rhynes of Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland.

The judge, ruling after a bench trial without a jury, found that Van Dusen had needlessly allowed the majority of the cats in her home on Magnolia Street in West Oakland to suffer from emaciation, diarrhea, severe parasite infections and other maladies. Some had to be euthanized.

Van Dusen could face up to three years in prison when she is sentenced July 25. She declined to comment Friday.

full: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Felony-conviction-over-Oakland-lawyer-s-93-cats-5567701.php

photo:

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Felony conviction over Oakland lawyer's 93 cats (Original Post) alp227 Jun 2014 OP

It is simply not possible for one person to take care of so many cats. SheilaT Jun 2014 #1

Well said. Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #2

I can see how it can happen, though. LisaL Jun 2014 #3

No...she'd get a jury conviction, too. A few pics from the prosecution, they'd have msanthrope Jun 2014 #4

She already didn't. LisaL Jun 2014 #5

Her prior jury had a single holdout. No competent attorney would then think that msanthrope Jun 2014 #6

A bench trial is a gurantee for conviction, whereas with a jury trial there is a always a chance for LisaL Jun 2014 #7

No...a bench is certainly not a guarantee. I've had clients do very well on bench trials, msanthrope Jun 2014 #8

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)

1. It is simply not possible for one person to take care of so many cats.

Reply to alp227 (Original post)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:37 PM

Jun 2014

I'm a cat lover, and I know how stupid it is for anyone to have such numbers of them. And I quite frankly have no use for those who justify trying to keep them all because if they go to the shelter they'll only be killed. Maybe. Maybe not. And euthanasia can be a great deal kinder than starvation, parasitic infections, and so on.

Louisiana1976

(3,962 posts)

2. Well said.

Reply to SheilaT (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:53 PM

Jun 2014

LisaL

(44,973 posts)

3. I can see how it can happen, though.

Reply to SheilaT (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 09:50 AM

Jun 2014

A lot of stray cats where I live.
Why did this woman agree to a bench trial?
A jury would have had a hard time convicting her.

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

4. No...she'd get a jury conviction, too. A few pics from the prosecution, they'd have

Reply to LisaL (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:00 AM

Jun 2014

their conviction.

LisaL

(44,973 posts)

5. She already didn't.

Reply to msanthrope (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:01 AM

Jun 2014

Her jury trial resulted in mistrial.
She should have not agreed to a bench trial.

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

6. Her prior jury had a single holdout. No competent attorney would then think that

Reply to LisaL (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:08 AM

Jun 2014

a jury retrial was preferable...retrials of that sort favor the prosecution because they get a "do-over" with mininimal corrections that take care of the outlier possibility.

Bench was the way to go, and, frankly, I'm betting the client rejected any deals....lawyers make shit clients.

LisaL

(44,973 posts)

7. A bench trial is a gurantee for conviction, whereas with a jury trial there is a always a chance for

Reply to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:11 AM

Jun 2014

holdouts.
Which is why most people don't agree to a bench trial.

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

8. No...a bench is certainly not a guarantee. I've had clients do very well on bench trials,

Reply to LisaL (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 01:05 PM

Jun 2014

particularly in cases that are highly technical.

But a single holdout on the jury means the defense failed the client.

Reply to this discussion