Muddy Paws Animal Cruelty Trial To Start Sept. 6

Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court Judge James Booras denied three pre-trial motions made today by John Curnyn, the defense attorney for Diane Eldrup, the woman facing felony charges of animal cruelty.

, a Class 4 felony with a maximum punishment of one to three years in jail, and 19 counts of animal torture, a Class 3 felony that carries a maximum jail sentence of five years.

A total of 34 dogs and numerous birds were discovered dead at Muddy Paws, a former rescue and boarding facility on Route 12 in Deer Park.

.

Curnyn made a motion to strike the evidence of dogs that were not sent for a necropsy. Just six of the dogs were sent for necropsy to determine the cause of death.

“In a first-degree murder trial, if there was no autopsy performed, you would not let the jury speculate as to the cause of death,” Curnyn argued.”The same should apply. We don’t know what happened to those 12 dogs.”

Assistant State’s Attorney Michael Mermel, who is prosecuting the case, said the six dogs were chosen for necropsy because they were the most complete. “The other dogs were in so advanced a state of decomposition that there was little or nothing left,” Mermel said.  He countered that case law allows for circumstancial evidence.

Mermel said he will present the testimony of two different necropsy experts at trial.

Curnyn also sought to bar testimony by Dr. Ned Bartlett, a veterinarian, saying that Bartlett was not qualified to render an expert opinion, because he has no expertise in performing autopsies.  The opinion Bartlett would provide in testimony would be based on the expertise of David Gardiner, of California, a veterinarian with expertise in pathology

Mermel said Illinois law allows one expert to base an opinion on the expertise of another.

In a related motion, Curnyn said testimony by Bartlett would be hearsay, because he would be basing it on the information from the California pathologist. Booras denied all three motions.

Mermel also presented a series of motions, most of which were standard procedure. Mermel said he was presenting the motions because Curnyn planned to present information to the jury that the state was taking Eldrup away from her child.

Mermel’s motions stated that Curnyn would not be allowed to argue hardship; would not be allowed to say in court that Eldrup was charged with a felony; evidence of the defendant’s lack of criminal history would be barred; and Curnyn would not be allowed to define “reasonable doubt” for the jury. The final motion made by Mermel state that Curnyn could not present character witnesses.

Mermel said Curnyn should not bring witnesses who say they knew Eldrup when she did kind things for dogs; he said character evidence was inadmissible and not an issue in the case.

Curnyn agreed with all motions presented by Mermel.

Booras also told both the defense and prosecution that they need to allow each other to try their case.

“Avoid bickering, avoid unnecessary arguments; avoid grandstanding. We need each side to try this case properly,” Booras said.