Here’s an example of what, to a lawyer, ought to be a patently ridiculous argument, but that also deserves a certain grudging respect for its sheer audacity. This is from a 2009 unpublished decision by the Texas First District Court of Appeals in Houston, Bradley v. Texas:

Appellant, Marcus Andre Bradley, challenges the order of the county court at law denying him the relief that he requested in his application for a writ of habeas corpus. In his sole issue, appellant contends that the State’s prosecution of him for the offense of cruelty to animals, after a justice court had, in a prior proceeding, terminated his ownership of 45 pit bull dogs and ordered him to pay $9,020 to the Houston Humane Society for the boarding and care of the dogs, is barred under the “doctrine[s] of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel.”

We affirm the order of the trial court.

It’s mostly the double jeopardy argument that intrigues me. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense, but it’s not as simple as it might sound. The government can’t charge you with the same offense if you are acquitted after a trial, or if the case is declared a mistrial after a certain point in the case. That doesn’t apply, though, if one case is criminal and the other isn’t.

Here, the guy tried to argue that the state couldn’t prosecute him for animal cruelty because it had already made a finding of animal cruelty in a hearing to determine whether he should be ordered to forfeit the dogs. Those are two completely different legal concepts. The first proceeding was in justice court and required the state to prove by a preponderance of evidence that “cruel treatment” occurred under Texas Health & Safety Code §§ 821.022 and 821.023. The second proceeding was a criminal prosecution, during which the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he neglected the dogs or otherwise treated them in a “cruel manner,” as defined by Texas Penal Code § 42.092. I do give the guy points for effort, though, even if his argument fails basic constitutional law.

---

Photo credit: jodylehigh [Public domain, CC0 1.0], via Pixabay.