Pet-Abuse.Com - Animal Abuse Case Details: Hog-dog fighting - 15 hogs, 95 dogs

Hog-dog fighting - 15 hogs, 95 dogs
Fort Lawn, SC (US)

Incident Date: Friday, Dec 17, 2004
County: Chester
Local Map: available
Disposition: Acquitted

Persons of Interest:
» Thomas Gene Guffey - Dismissed
» Arthur Parker, Sr.
» Arthur Parker, Jr. - Alleged
» Mary Evans Luther

Case Updates: 10 update(s) available

Case ID: 5759

Classification: Fighting

Animal: dog (non pit-bull), pig

View more cases in SC (US)

On Dec. 17, authorities arrested three Fort Lawn, S.C., residents for their suspected role in the fights.

State agents say Fort Lawn residents Arthur Parker Sr., 47; Arthur Parker Jr., 20; and Mary Evans Luther, 50, pitted the animals against each other and attended fighting matches. The elder Parker is accused of organizing fights across the state.

Investigators found 15 hogs and 95 dogs at the home the trio shared on Mount Vernon Road. Several hogs were wounded and one had a broken leg, according to the S.C. Attorney General's Office. Fort Lawn is about 50 miles south of Charlotte in Chester County.

The fights take place in an enclosed ring where spectators are encouraged to bet on how long it takes a dog to pin down a hog that has had its tusks removed.

While hunting hogs with dogs is legal in South Carolina, staged fights between animals are prohibited. North Carolina also bans fighting between any animals.

Case Updates

Parker's son, Arthur Parker Jr., was arrested along with his father and Luther, and charged, then indicted, as they were on charges of animal fighting, possession of a dangerous animal, ill treatment of an animal, conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He is represented by Public Defender Yale Zamore, who has asked that Parker Jr. be given a mental evaluation.

Guffey was arrested but not indicted by a Chester County grand jury in the case.

Source: News & Reporter - Oct 19, 2005
Update posted on Oct 19, 2005 - 11:34PM

Back to Top

On Thursday, a jury found 47-year-old Arthur Parker, Sr., and 51-year-old Mary Luther not guilty on charges of animal fighting, conspiracy, ill treatment of animals, possession of a dangerous animal and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

The jury did convict them on a charge of simple possession ofmarijuana. Circuit Judge Kenneth Goode fined each of them 100 dollars.

Source: WLTX - Oct 14, 2005
Update posted on Oct 14, 2005 - 1:45PM

Back to Top

�The state rests,� said state prosecutor William Frick said at about 4 p.m. Wednesday.

Instead of watching the defense begin its case, Frick had to battle to keep his case alive.

The S.C. Attorney General's Office has charged a Fort Lawn couple with animal fighting in what has become known as the hog-dog case.

Exceptions written into South Carolina's animal fighting law almost caused the judge to throw out the animal fighting charge against Art Parker and Mary Evans Luther.

Parker and Luther were arrested Dec. 17 when state law enforcement raided their home on 1555 Mount Vernon Road, Fort Lawn

When Frick rested his case, the jury left for what are normally routine motions. But defense attorney Michael Hemlepp made a separate motion for a directed verdict to dismiss only the animal fighting charge, one of five charges his clients face.

In many cases, motions for a directed verdict are dealt with at once and disposed of quickly, but Judge Kenny Goode took his time considering the motion. Goode got into a lengthy debate with Frick about the law, and his many questions seemed to indicate he might dismiss the charge.

Hemlepp's motion was based primary on exceptions written into the animal fighting law.

Section 16-27-60 lists what actions may not be considered animal fighting:

� using any animal to pursue or take wildlife or to participate in hunting in accordance with the game and wildlife laws of this State and regulations of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources;

� using any animal to work livestock for agricultural purposes; and

� properly training or using dogs for law enforcement purposes or protection of persons and private property.

Section 16-27-80 says the law is inapplicable to dogs used for hunting or field trials; and requires a state permit for "Fox-pen-trials".

�This chapter shall not apply to dogs used for the purpose of hunting or for dogs used in field trials in more commonly known as "water races", "Treeing Contests", "Coon-on-a-log", "Bear-Baying", or "Fox-pen-trials." Such "Fox-pen-trials" must be approved by permit for field trials by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.�

Hemlepp said training dogs for hunting or in a field trial is an exception in the law.

He said his clients hunt hogs with dogs.

An officer with the state Department of Natural Resources testified for the prosecution that hog hunting �season� is year round, and there is no bag limit on hogs. It is not illegal to hunt hogs nor is it illegal to hunt hogs with dogs, Hemlepp said.

With no definition of a field trial in that law or any other state law, the state would have to prove with evidence or testimony during the prosecution that hog-dog events, also called �catch dog� or hog-dog rodeo, are not field trials.

Hemlepp said that not only did the prosecution present no evidence that hog-dog rodeo aren't field trials, several prosecution witnesses said the opposite.

Frick said he had more than one witness who said there was a difference between training dogs to hunt hogs and hog-dog events.

He said the DNR officer he called to the stand said the DNR did not issue permits to the couple for their events, nor would they issue any if permits were required. The officer said it was his opinion the events weren't field trials.

Frick said the events did not simulate any hunting conditions, but Hemlepp said that many field trials do not mirror the conditions of the hunting environment.

�If it replicated hunting, it would be hunting,� not training, he said.

One of the prosecution's witnesses said he had gotten trophies at field trials, which Frick had tried to say distinguished the hog-dog events. from field trials.

Frick said for a motion of directed verdict to pass, the state would have had to provide no evidence to meet the standard of the law.

Goode said he thought the testimony of a Clarendon County man, ?? Broadway, showed the events were training.

�He said he was hog hunting all his life, and that his dogs were better hunters after going to catch events, Goode said.

Goode also said that Broadway mentioned baying trees, but that testimony came from another witness.

�He said when the bay dogs corner the hogs, then release the catch dog,� he said. �How is that not a simulation of a field trial?�

Frick said if the events happened in the wild, the state would not have brought the charges.

�It would be legal,� he said.

An animal control officer from Spartanburg County who used to work for the Humane Society of the United States said the events weren't field trials in his opinion, Frick said.

�He was not qualified to give that opinion,� Goode said. The officer was qualified as an expert in animal fighting investigations.

�The defense doesn't have to prove anything,� Hemlepp said. The state has the burden of proof.

Frick said Broadway testified under oath that he would not put a �green dog� in the ring at an ICA event, so it wasn't training. A green dog has no experience,

The dogs in the event are trained already, Frick said. He added that Broadway said, when asked, that training a hog dog was different than doing a catch event.

�Why would you put a trained dog in?� Frick said.

Goode said dog owners could want to compare and which dogs were trained the best.

Frick said it was different also because of the numerous spectators at the events. He also said items like �break sticks,� used to separate dogs were only seen in animal fighting, according to the animal control officer from Spartanburg. S?? Christiansen.

Frick said a statement given by Mary Luther to a private investigator wearing a wire was the proof he submitted.

Goode said at first that he thought the statement was exculpatory, which would mean it is evidence of her evidence.

The investigator, George Owens, was pretending to be interested in starting up his own hog dog event. In the statement, Luther says that she wants her events to be �legal.� She told him that she rans her operations like a franchise.

�The emphasis has to be on the training,� Luther said in the statement. She went on to say she didn't care how it was done, - �I don't care if it's for looks� - but it had to look like there was training. �you put some walls they can jump over, balance beams fro an agility course,� she said in the statement.

Frick said the statement was about Luther wanting to make sure that everything appeared legitimate.

�That is an admission the training is a ruse,� Frick said.

�May I see that statement please,� Goode said, then took some time reading it over.

�I absolutely fail to see it, � he said after reviewing it.

While Frick continued to argue his point, Goode's law clerk pointed out something on a computer screen.

Frick said if the state provided just a scintilla of evidence on the point, the case would have to go forward. But if there was any evidence, it is up to the jury to decide how much and how credible the evidence is.

Hemlepp said the evidence only proves that the couple train dogs to catch hogs and put on breed-specific dog shows.

�That's there burden to prove it's not, and nothing in this records says it's not,� he said.

After some consideration, Goode said he would deny the motion for a directed verdict on the animal fighting charge.

Hemlepp then made a motion for a directed verdict on the other four charges. The couple are also charged with ill treatment of animals, possession of a dangerous animal, conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The motion was not debated, and Goode ruled against it as well.

The jury was allowed back in, and at 4:33 p.m., Hemlepp began a defense of his clients.

Source: The News & Reporter - Oct 13, 2005
Update posted on Oct 13, 2005 - 5:50PM

Back to Top

With a booming flourish, defense attorney Michael Hemlepp made a patriotic opening statement in the trial of two Fort Lawn residents charged with animal fighting.

"We all live in the United States of America," Hemlepp said.

He said the country was named by Thomas Paine in 1776, in an essay called "Common Sense" in which he said that "Government at its best is a necessity evil, but at its worst is an intolerable one."

The prosecution of Art Parker and Mary Evans Luther was a case of government being intolerable, he said.

Parker and Luther are both charged with animal fighting, conspiracy, ill treatment of animals, possession of a dangerous animal and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

They were arrested Dec. 17 and charged with attending an animal fight and animal baiting or fighting.

In the prosecution's opening statement, Assistant Sixth Circuit Solicitor William Frick, who is trying the case for the S.C. Attorney General's Office, neither thundered nor cited Revolutionary War pamphlets.

He said the case comes down to a simple premise - it is illegal in South Carolina to have any kind of dog or animal for the purpose of fighting that animal.

Dogs can get into fights in the neighborhood. Dogs can be used to hunt, and dogs can be trained to hunt.

"That isn't what this is," he said.

Luther and Parker are charged with involvement in an event called "hog-dog rodeo" or hog catch.

A wild hog is put in a chute connected to a rodeo-style pen and released into it.

A handler is already in the pen with a dog, usually an American bulldog or pit bull.

The dog is released and is timed as it goes after the hog. The dog that brings the boar down in the quickest time is judged the winner.

The Attorney General's Office has said that is animal fighting. Frick, trying to head off defense claims, said it is not training. Advocates of the sport have said it is a way to train dogs to hunt hogs in the wild.

"It is not illegal to hunt in South Carolina. It is not illegal to hunt hogs in South Carolina, nor is it illegal to hunt hogs with dogs," he said. "That's not what this is."

He said the law against animal fighting has a couple of exceptions. One is allowing hunting dogs. Another is allowing field trials.

Field trials are regulated by the state Department of Natural Resources, he said. And they have to simulate the conditions under which hunting dogs hunt.

Hog-dog rodeos are not field trials, Frick said, nor are they training.

Dogs do not hunt hogs in enclosed pens, from which neither animal can escape, he said. Also, Parker and Luther charged admission for spectators, using a cash box at their events with "No refunds" written on it. They also charged dog owners entry fees, then gave out trophies when the event was over.

Hemlepp said if you hunt with a dog, the dog has to be trained.

"I hope when this is over, you know my clients the way I do," he said. "These people love animals. Yes. They love animals."

"In 1776, brave men and women said no" to a repressive tyrant, George III, Hemlepp said. "In the year 2005, we have something they did not have - a court and jury system."

Hemlepp said Parker and Luther can ask the men and women of the jury to turn back "the power, authority and weight of the state."

"Their life, liberty and property are at risk," Hemlepp said of his clients.

The state is prosecuting the couple because the state "doesn't like them" and because it can, he said.

He said that there will be a lot of facts presented in the case that the defense and prosecution will agree on.

"We just don't agree it is a crime," he said.

"It's just simply not a crime," he said. "They just don't like it."

The opening statements came after a pre-trial motion was heard with the jury removed from the room.

Frick asked the judge to allow a statement made by Luther to SLED agent Max Dorsey. The statement was made Dec. 17, after Luther and Parker's home was raided and they were arrested. Luther was taken to the Fort Lawn Police Department and "debriefed," Dorsey said.

Luther was read her Miranda rights and agreed to give a statement, Dorsey said. The statement was witnessed by Jim Bruce, a state constable and a county councilman.

Luther told Dorsey she had been involved in hog-dogging for about three years.

Judge Kenny Goode allowed the statement in.

The second statement came from George Owens, a private investigator who was working with the state, but hired by the Humane Society of the United States.

He attended a hog-dog rodeo event Oct. 16 and was wired to record both video and audio.

Both the video and audio were difficult to make out when a tape was played. Hemlepp agreed that Luther's Miranda rights weren't violated by the tape, but said he couldn't understand most of what Luther was saying on the tape.

Frick said he wanted to enter specifically a comment Luther made that she runs her hog-dog operation like a "franchise," and that hog-dog events in Alabama were not run by her rules.

On a portion of the tape that was very easy to make out, the female voice identified as Luther's said she had copyrighted her event's rules.

Goode said he would only allow a brief portion of the tape to be played, and a transcript made of that portion to help the jury out.

Goode said he was also concerned because Owens got the recording equipment from the State Law Enforcement Division, but had said he wasn't working with law enforcement.

Frick said he "believed" he had asked Owens whether he was working "for" law enforcement, not with law enforcement.

Owens said he has worked other investigations without any help from law enforcement, and that he was working cooperatively with law enforcement, but he was not paid by law enforcement. He said the Humane Society of the United States was paying him $3,000 a month plus expenses.

Those statements were heard before opening arguments.

The two lawyers made their statements, then Frick called SLED agent Jack Rushing, the lead investigator in the case.

He was not questioned by Frick extensively, but did go over much of the material that was seized when agents raided the 1555 Mount Vernon Road residence of Luther and Parker.

The seized material included marijuana, but that was not brought out at court, scales and "roach clips," to support the drug charge. Frick carried a fishing tackle box that had been converted into an animal medical kit, that included syringes and an intravenous fluid kit, as well as sutures and other first aid material.

Another heavy tool box contained sticks that Rushing said were used to separate dogs from other dogs in dog fights, but used to separate dogs from hogs at the hog-dog rodeo events.

Two deputies brought out a treadmill used to "get the dogs wind up," Rushing said. When asked, he said it was too small to be used by humans.

Frick also introduced some letters seized in the raid. One was between Luther and Kevin Lamont Loney, 27, of 6095 Camden Highway in Rembert.

Before leaving the Attorney General's Office for the Sixth Circuit, Frick handled the plea and sentencing of Loney, who pleaded guilty to 47 counts of dog fighting. Loney was sentenced to four years on each count, but they will run together.

Parker wrote a letter to the National Kennel Club, wanting to get Lester Hughes certified as a pit bull judge and breeder. Rushing said Hughes was well-known in the "dog-man world," but Hemlepp objected to the question.

Hemlepp did not get to cross-examine Rushing before the case broke for lunch.

Source: Online Chester - Oct 11, 2005
Update posted on Oct 11, 2005 - 2:38PM

Back to Top

Nine women and three men will decide the fate of a Fort Lawn couple charged with multiple offenses in the hog-dog case that began nine months and three weeks ago.

Lawyers spent Monday afternoon qualifying a jury panel then picking jurors to serve on the trial of Arthur Alvin Parker, and Mary Evans Luther, both of 1555 Mt. Vernon Road, Fort Lawn. The couple was arrested Dec. 17 and charged with animal fighting and attending an animal fight. They were later indicted on charges of conspiracy, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of a dangerous animal and ill-treatment of an animal.

The trial has been put off twice. A jury picked and qualified Aug. 30 was let go that afternoon by a development in the case.

Surprise developments won't stop the trial this week. The jury picked for the trial in August was not sworn in. The jury picked Monday was sworn in and told to report at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday for detailed instructions from Circuit Court Kenny Goode, to be followed by opening arguments.

Goode was feisty during jury selection, telling two men who had baggy T-shirts that were not tucked in and almost reaching their knees that they were not dressed appropriately for court. Goode challenged another man who apparently thought jury service isn't a vital part of society.

"Many people who serve come up after and tell me that participating in jury service was important to our way of life," Goode said. "I see a fellow back there rolling his eyes. You'll have to live with that sir, but I hope that the others do want to be here. I am glad that you all are here."

The jury panel was qualified by 3:10 p.m., and the jury selected by 3:34 p.m.

Two men got off the jury, one because he said he could not read and had only a fifth grade education. The other said he had been convicted of selling drugs.

Another man was transferred to another term of court because he said he had to take his wife to a hospital on Tuesday.

Both the prosecution and defense combined to form a list of questions that might allow some jurors to be disqualified, either by the judge or the lawyers.

Criteria include whether jurors

- were members or contributors to law enforcement or victims rights groups such as MADD, SADD or CAVE;

- have a negative opinion of the Humane Society of the United States or other animal rights organizations; and

- believe that animals do not feel pain.

The jury panel did not react to most of the questions.

Almost no one stood up when three questions were asked about hunting.

But one man admitted he hunted hogs, and the judge excused him. The only person who stood up and admitted to any other kind of hunting was a young woman who said she hunts deer.

The biggest reaction to any single question was when the panel was asked if they had heard anything about the case.

Eight people said they had read about the case in the paper. None were disqualified by the judge, after they said what they had read would not effect their fairness.

Three people stood up when asked if they had ever owned pit bulls or other kinds of bulldogs.

One woman said she had a terrier, and she said it would effect her ability to render a verdict. Another woman said she had two pit bulls.

Another woman said she had Boston terriers.

Goode said, "I'm not sure they qualify as bulldogs."

Art Parker, a judge of American bulldog conformation shows, softly said, "Yes sir, they are."

The jury selection ended at 3:53 p.m. At 4:35 p.m., after meeting in conference with the lawyers, Goode sent the jury home. He warned them not to watch or read anything about the case, and told them to be back in the morning.

The case has been put off twice in recent months.

The case was supposed to be heard Aug. 15, but was moved to Aug. 29. A jury panel was picked for the Aug. 29 week of court, but it was not sworn in.

Hog-dogging is considered animal cruelty by the S.C. Attorney General's Office. The "sport" pits bulldogs against wild or "feral" boars. People who practice it also call it dog rodeo, catch dog, and hog catching, claiming they are training the dogs to hunt boar in the wild.

Most of the pre-trial motions were handled last week.

The defense won a motion that prevents the prosecutor from playing the audio portion of a video tape of a hog-dog fight. The tape was made by a private investigator helping the Attorney General's animal abuse investigation team.

The defense also won a motion preventing the discussion of the breeds of the dogs and their , as well as suppressing some evidence.

The prosecution won a few other motions. A motion which questioned the constitutionality of the state's conspiracy statute was denied. A search warrant was upheld by Goode.

Assistant Sixth Circuit Solicitor William Frick is prosecuting the case for the Attorney General's Office. Michael Hemlepp is defending Parker and Luther.

Frick expects a jury will be seated on Monday so he can begin testimony on Tuesday. He says he could perhaps conclude testimony the same day, but it might spill over onto Wednesday. The defense would have the rest of the week for its case.

Three other individuals have been charged in Chester County.

Parker's son, Arthur Alvin Parker Jr., also known as Bubba, also of 1555 Mt. Vernon Road, Fort Lawn, was also arrested Dec. 17 and charged with animal fighting and attending and animal fight. He has also been indicted on charges of conspiracy, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of a dangerous animal and ill-treatment of an animal.

His lawyer requested he be evaluated, and his trial has not be scheduled.

Thomas Gene Guffey (of 2127 Preston Mill Road, Huddleston, Va., according to warrants and of 4440 Wylies Mill, Richburg, according to booking records) was arrested Dec. 17 before the Parkers and Luther, but his arrest was not announced with the others. He was charged with two counts of animal fighting and baiting when he was arrested, but he has not been indicted by the Chester County grand jury.

Former Chester County Animal Control Director Vicki Stultz Land, 47, of 2541 Knox Station Road, Chester, was arrested Dec. 23 and charged with animal fighting and baiting, as well as misconduct in office. She has been indicted by the grand jury on those two charges. Her trial has not been scheduled as yet.

The video tape made by the private investigator helping on the case shows Land in attendance at a Oct. 16 hog-dog event at a lumber yard in Richburg, according to Plowden..

Four other people were arrested in three other states Dec. 17.

Source: News & Reporter - Oct 10, 2005
Update posted on Oct 10, 2005 - 9:26PM

Back to Top

One of the five people charged in Chester County in a hog-dog investigation told County Council, she has been holding animals for Chester County Animal Control, and wants some kind of reimbursement for her trouble.

Mary Evans Luther of 1555 Mount Vernon Road, Fort Lawn, appeared before County Council Monday night to say she appreciated the use of the Rodman Ballfield for two dog shows, one held in June and another held just two weekends ago. But she complained that some of the rule changes made have inconvenienced her group's ability to possibly hold dog shows at the ball field in the future.

At a meeting Wednesday with Chester County Manager Avery Frick, Luther said she had been holding animals for Chester County Animal Control and wanted to be reimbursed for her expenses,. She also said she and Art Parker used their trailers and expertise to help Chester County Animal Control capture and transport wild hogs.

Luther is charged along with Art Parker, Arthur Parker Jr., Vicky Stoltz Land and Thomas Eugene Guffey in the hog-dog investigation.

Luther's claim to be holding animals for Chester County's Animal Control had Chester County Manager Avery Frick and County Public Works Director Gene Loving literally shaking their heads after Monday night's meeting.

Both said they don't know what Luther was talking about, but also said that Luther claimed she had been holding the animals for some time.

Frick continued to express some bewilderment after meeting with Luther on Wednesday.

The S.C. Attorney General's Dog Fighting Task Force raided the Mount Vernon Road home Dec. 17 and seized 95 dogs and 15 to 16 hogs in a multi-state raid coordinated in part by the Humane Society of the United States.

On Thursday, Luther said she and Parker "gave notice of termination of services for all agencies present" - on Dec. 17, the day of the raid. She submitted an invoice to Frick Wednesday for "services performed "in taking care of, housing or helping capture and transport 26 animals, Frick said. Luther told him the services performed from Feb. 2004 to Dec. 17, 2004.

The bill was for $180,460, which is more than two county tax mills.

If the services were performed, they were done before Frick was hired as manager, and before Animal Control was put under Loving's supervision as a part of the Public Works Department.

The dates coincide with Land's term as Animal Control Director.

Luther told Frick Wednesday the animals included a couple of raccoons, chickens and hogs. At an earlier meeting she told Frick about a goat, but did not discuss the goat Wednesday, he said.

She said three hogs were shot on the site, two raccoons were released to the wild, one of which was hurt, and two chickens "were frozen." Luther told Frick she is still boarding some animals.

When they were arrested, Parker Sr. and Luther were listed as officers of the International Catch Dog Association, an organization that sponsored hog-dog fights, also known as "Catch trials." in which dogs, mostly American bulldogs and pit bulls would be let loose in a rodeo-style pen to bring down and catch a feral pig.

While in some states, the tusks of the wild hogs were pulled or shorn down, the Attorney General's Office has said that did not happen in the fights they are aware of. However, the Attorney General's Office said at the time of the raids such events are animal cruelty, so it charged both Parkers, Luther and Guffey with staging and attending animals fights.

Land was charged a week later, after being put on leave as Chester County's Animal Control Director, with misconduct in office and attending an animal fight. Land was at a hog-dog fight at a Richburg lumber yard in October, according to a SLED warrant.

Luther's claims at council on Monday suggest some kind of relationship between the hog-dog principals and Land, but Frick said it doesn't fit any county policies at the time nor any current policies.

"She would need a contract or at least a purchase order, and she said she did not have one," Frick said Thursday. He said during the period Luther said she was helping Animal Control, the director reported to the county manager. A county manager would not have approved of the kind of relationship Luther described without getting approval from County Council, Frick said.

"There's nothing in the minutes about this," he said.

The charges against Land so far have been tied specifically to her attendance at the October hog-dog fight. The Attorney General's office has confirmed that Land was recorded on a videotape made by a private investigator assisting SLED at that fight.

Both Frick and Loving have said the hog-dog case has caused some trouble for the Animal Control office.

The 95 seized dogs seized in December were more than the Chester County's shelter could handle. Frick was not the county's manager at the time, but the interim manager at the time, Gene Klugh, put Loving in charge of Animal Control temporarily when Land was fired.

Loving had to find other shelters to hold the dogs, and they are spread out around the Southeast. One of the dogs was being held in a Florida shelter. On Aug. 29, that pit bull bit a shelter worker. It has been relocated. The worker was treated and released. She was not seriously injured.

At the beginning of the year, Chester County Human Resources Officer Cindy Goettsch attended a preliminary hearing for Land, at which SLED's videotape was aired. Land was fired later that day.

Animal Control was an independent agency under the manager's office, but it was put under Public Works, and the director was changed to a supervisor who reports to Loving.

Two of the three animal control officers who worked with Land were let go when Stephanie Dodds Bishop was hired as the animal control supervisor, and just one worker was retained.

Loving has to keep up with all the dogs at the other shelters. They are considered seized property, according to the S.C. Attorney General's Office. If Luther and Parker Sr. are found innocent at trials, the dogs will be returned to the couple. If they are found guilty, the state will take ownership. The dogs will be evaluated for possible adoption. Dogs deemed too aggressive may be euthanized.

Frick said he had a phone conversation in August with Luther about her questions. She said that she has been holding several chickens and a goat for animal control.

Parker Sr. and Luther were supposed to go on trial Aug. 15, but that was put off until Aug. 29. A jury was picked but not sworn in for their trial when Circuit Court Judge Kenneth Goode granted a postponement to the defense.

Attorney Michael Hemlepp said he had just learned of a development in the case and could not proceed with the trial. They are to go to trial Oct. 10 in Chester County.

Hemlepp said he had heard some about the issue of the housing of the animals, but he says it is not related to his case.

He says the couple has had its livelihood taken away from them by their arrests, and he understands what they are doing.

"But they haven't retained me to get money they think they are owed by Chester County," he said Wednesday.

Because his son is the lawyer prosecuting the case, Frick said he is being very careful. He has asked County Attorney Joanie Winters to look into the issue and, if necessary, notify the prosecution.

Source: Chester News & Reporter - Sept 23, 2005
Update posted on Sep 23, 2005 - 9:32AM

Back to Top

The prosecution was ready to begin today, but the defense claimed there is new evidence they need to investigate and received a continuence until Oct. 10.

Update posted on Aug 30, 2005 - 5:51PM

Back to Top

The trial of two of the five people accused of fighting pit bulls and hogs is expected to begin today, prosecutors said. Arthur Parker Sr. and Mary Luther have been charged with conspiracy, ill treatment of animals, possession of a dangerous animal and marijuana possession.

Source: The State - Aug 30, 3005
Update posted on Aug 30, 2005 - 9:50AM

Back to Top

Four people previously arrested on charges of participating in illegal animals fights have been indicted by a Chester County grand jury. The indictments Tuesday officially enumerate the charges against Arthur Parker Sr., Arthur Parker Jr., Mary Luther and Vicky Land.

Chester County assistant prosecutor Chris Taylor said the state attorney general's office will prosecute the case. Mark Plowden, a spokesman for the attorney general's office, said no trial date has been set.

The Parkers and Luther, all of Fort Lawn, were indicted on charges of conspiracy, animal fighting, ill treatment of animals, possession of a dangerous animal and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, Plowden said.

Land, a former Chester County animal control director was indicted on charges of animal fighting and misconduct in office, Plowden said.

None of the defendants nor their attorneys attended Tuesday's hearing, Taylor said.

Source: Associated Press - Apr. 06, 2005
Update posted on Apr 8, 2005 - 8:44PM

Back to Top

A fifth person charged in connection with an alleged animal-fighting ring is a Chester County resident, officials said.

Thomas Gene Guffey, 29, was arrested in the raid on the alleged illegal fighting ring Dec. 17. Guffey was released Dec. 18 on a $10,000 bail, a detention official said. Jail records show Guffey lives in Richburg.

He is accused of being at a location Oct. 16 where preparations for an animal fight had been made. Guffey also is accused of having knowledge that fighting or baiting an animal was about to occur there, the arrest warrant said.

Guffey is an employee of a Richburg lumber yard where State Law Enforcement Division officials say a hog-dog-fighting incident occurred.

Guffey, three Fort Lawn residents and the Chester County animal-control director, Vicky Stultz Land, were arrested and charged with cruelty to animals, SLED spokeswoman Kathryn Richardson said.

Source: Myrtle Beach Online - Jan 6, 2005
Update posted on Jan 6, 2005 - 4:56AM

Back to Top

Neighborhood Map

For more information about the Interactive Animal Cruelty Maps, see the map notes.

Add this case to:

Del.icio.us

Digg

Furl

References

	- Dec 28, 2004
	- Dec 26, 2004
	- Dec 26, 2004
	- Dec 27, 2004
	- Dec 27, 2004
	- Dec 18, 2004
	- Dec 22, 2004
	- Jan 5, 2005
	- Sept 1, 2005

« SC State Animal Cruelty Map

Not sure what these icons mean? Click here.

Note: Classifications and other fields should not be used to determine what specific charges the suspect is facing or was convicted of - they are for research and statistical purposes only. The case report and subsequent updates outline the specific charges. Charges referenced in the original case report may be modified throughout the course of the investigation or trial, so case updates, when available, should always be considered the most accurate reflection of charges.

For more information regarding classifications and usage of this database, please visit the database notes and disclaimer.

Site Map ¤ Disclaimer ¤ Privacy Policy

Hog-dog fighting - 15 hogs, 95 dogsFort Lawn, SC (US)

Case Updates

Neighborhood Map

References

Hog-dog fighting - 15 hogs, 95 dogs
Fort Lawn, SC (US)