Dispatch couple 2021 trial#

It’s terrible … Our government is just sitting on its laurels and doing nothing. Department of Agriculture’s inspection standards, Wittig said, “If that’s the case, the USDA requirements are so pale in comparison to what they should be … It’s making me shake right now. When the Sellners’ attorney noted that the enclosures at the zoo meet the U.S. I mean, I understand you’ve got seven (scheduled) days of trial, but what I saw today paints a picture a thousand words can’t describe.” Judge questioned USDA standards

Dispatch couple 2021 trial#

“We conclude the court’s questioning did not deprive the Sellners of a fair trial,” the Court of Appeals stated, adding that the better practice is for trial judges to exercise restraint because by questioning witnesses, the court becomes vulnerable to accusations of bias, prejudice or advocacy.ĭuring the trial, Wittig had made other comments about the site visit, stating, “The smell was horrific.

The Iowa Court of Appeals also addressed the question of whether Wittig’s questioning of witnesses during the trial was too adversarial, noting that Wittig “questioned certain witnesses in what might be described as an advocacy style.” The court noted there was no jury involved in the case, and that trial judges are generally given greater latitude to comment during such proceedings. “But the court ultimately allowed the defense to present its case and based the final order on the evidence.” “The court’s references to the site visit give us pause,” the appeals court’s decision states. In ruling that those comments did not warrant a new trial, Iowa Court of Appeals Judge Anuradha Vaitheswaran, writing for the court, noted that all of the parties in the case had agreed to the on-site visit by Judge Wittig.Īfter the Sellners moved for a mistrial and asked the judge to recuse herself due to her comments, Wittig had noted that while the memory of the site visit could not be erased, it was “never the case” that the couple would be denied the opportunity to present their own evidence and added that she would be keeping an open mind. I saw banging up against chain-link fences. I saw a great deal of unsanitary, horrible, rusted containments for animals that needed to roam. I didn’t see a lot of water anywhere, other than what had been falling from the rain. None of the animals was in any type of clean environment. I saw a dog that looked like it was rabid. It had fluids seeping out of its mouth and nostrils. “I saw a bear that looked like it was drugged. “I didn’t see healthy and happy animals today,” Judge Wittig told the Sellners’ attorney. In their appeal, the Sellners cited comments made to their attorney by Judge Wittig shortly after all of the parties visited the zoo on the first day of trial.

In briefs filed with the court, attorneys for the Sellners argued that the trial judge, Monica Zrinyi Wittig, “took an advocacy role” on the side of the animal rights groups that helped a group of Iowans sue to close the zoo by “criticizing and arguing with” the Sellners and their witnesses. The two owners of the Cricket Hollow, Pamela and Thomas Sellner of Manchester, had appealed a 2019 court ruling declaring the zoo to be a public nuisance.

The Iowa Court of Appeals has ruled the owners of Manchester’s Cricket Hollow Zoo were not denied a fair trial by a judge who closed the attraction after citing the “deplorable” conditions she observed there.