Who do you think should manage Ferriday water?|
Story Archives: Schneider conviction for dogfighting upheld by Third Circuit
- 2013 - 340 articles
- 2012 - 856 articles
- 2011 - 635 articles
- 2010 - 1276 articles
- 2009 - 1591 articles
- 2008 - 1763 articles
- December 2008 - 148 articles
- November 2008 - 147 articles
- October 2008 - 183 articles
- September 2008 - 128 articles
- August 2008 - 150 articles
- July 2008 - 143 articles
- June 2008 - 120 articles
- May 2008 - 148 articles
- April 2008 - 147 articles
- April 30th, 2008 (Wednesday) - 12 articles
- April 24th, 2008 (Thursday) - 16 articles
- April 23rd, 2008 (Wednesday) - 14 articles
- April 18th, 2008 (Friday) - 1 articles
- April 17th, 2008 (Thursday) - 25 articles
- April 16th, 2008 (Wednesday) - 20 articles
- April 15th, 2008 (Tuesday) - 1 articles
- April 10th, 2008 (Thursday) - 24 articles
- April 9th, 2008 (Wednesday) - 1 articles
- April 3rd, 2008 (Thursday) - 20 articles
- April 2nd, 2008 (Wednesday) - 13 articles
- March 2008 - 143 articles
- February 2008 - 146 articles
- January 2008 - 160 articles
|Schneider conviction for dogfighting upheld by Third Circuit|
The Third Circuit Court of Appeal has affirmed the conviction of Clinton B. Schneider Jr. on Monterey for dogfighting.
Third Circuit Judges Howard Ezell, Jimmie C. Peters, and Elizabeth A Pickett heard the case.
First Asst. Dist. Atty. Brad Burget prosecuted Schneider, who was represented by Robert W. Malone of Pineville. Judge Leo Boothe presided in Division B.
According to the Third Circuit, "on the date of the offense, August 26, 2005, the Defendant had forty-three pit bulls at his residence. All of the dogs were subsequently euthanized because it was believed the dogs were used in or bred for illegal dogfighting.
"On February 15, 2006....Schneider, Jr., was charged by bill of information with dogfighting, in violation of La.R.S. 14:102.5. The Defendant entered a plea of not guilty on March 15, 2006.
"A motion to suppress was filed on June 26, 2006, and denied at a hearing held on June 28, 2006. The Defendant filed a 'Notice of Intent to Apply for Writ' seeking review of the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress on July 27, 2006. In State v. Schneider, an unpublished writ opinion bearing docket number 06-1296 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/15/06), this court denied the Defendant's writ application.
"Jury selection commenced on February 12, 2007, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged on February 14, 2007. The Defendant filed a motion for post judgment verdict of acquittal on February 21, 2007, and a 'Motion for Arrest of Judgment and/or New Trial on March 26, 2007. Both motions were denied on March 28, 2007. On April 11, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to serve five years at hard labor and to pay a $2,500 fine."
An appeal was filed on May 11, 2007.
Schneider asserted six assignments of error:
1) There was insufficient evidence to support his conviction;
2) The trial court erred in denying his Motion to Quash, in which he alleged jurisdiction and venue were improper;
3) The trial court erred in denying his Motion to Quash, in which he alleged that La.R.S. 14:102.5 was unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and/or ambiguous;
4) The trial court erred in not sustaining his objection to the State's improper rebuttal arguments and in not granting his motion for mistrial;
5) The trial court erred in not granting the Defendant's Motion in Limine, in that the trial court allowed the introduction of evidence that was illegally seized and destroyed and that was not related to the jurisdiction or venue;
6) The trial court erred in not granting the Defendant's requested jury instructions and in not giving proper jury instructions.
Concerning all six, the court noted, "We find these assignments of error lack merit."
|Frank Morris Murder Series|