.jpg)
The appeal trial in the Natural Bridge Zoo case will begin as scheduled on Monday in Rockbridge County Circuit Court.
Despite expressing her intent to ask for a postponement of the trial in a scheduling hearing earlier this month, Michelle Welch of the state attorney general’s office submitted no motions prior to the court’s Feb. 6 deadline.
Attorneys for the Natural Bridge Zoo owners Karl and Debbie Mogensen submitted several motions, which were ruled on at a pretrial hearing in Rockbridge County Circuit Court last Wednesday.
At the hearing, Judge Christopher Russell rejected the zoo attorneys’ motion to suppress warrants for the Dec. 6 search of the zoo grounds and the Mogensen’s residence, which included a list of animals and objects seized on Dec. 6 and 7.
In her motion to suppress these warrants, Erin Harrigan, attorney for the Mogensens, claimed that they “contained several material deficiencies and omissions that erode all probable cause.”
Harrigan questioned the credibility of the confidential informant, employed at the zoo for several months, who provided information on its conditions and practices, and took issue with the fact that the state warrants did not consider the USDA’s inspections of the zoo. Welch argued to the judge that Virginia’s laws on animal care are stricter than the federal government’s, saying that the USDA enforces “minimal protections.”
She also defended the informant, citing the detailed information provided to authorities.
Russell expressed some concerns about the warrant, which was filed in Powhatan County.
“I find it somewhat troubling that the government wouldn’t trust authorities in Rockbridge County to conduct this search,” he said.
Welch argued that these decisions had been made to maintain secrecy, claiming the Mogensens have ties to local law enforcement.
She cited the removal of Asha, the zoo’s elephant, who, though mentioned several times in the search warrants, was not seized, as she was not on zoo property when law enforcement arrived.
According to a form filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, signed by Ashley Spencer, a vet with the Blue Ridge Animal Clinic, on Nov. 25, Asha was shipped to Two Tails Ranch, a privately owned elephant ranch in Florida.
“The investigation was confidential, so [the Mogensens] wouldn’t be tipped off. They were tipped off — they moved the elephant,” Welch said. “We moved as quietly as we could, so that no one would be tipped off, and they were still tipped off.”
Russell overruled the motion to suppress, noting that the Mogensens had “availed themselves of the streamlined procedure,” and an additional hearing on the warrants could delay that timeline.
At the Feb. 1 scheduling hearing, Harrigan argued that the law required that the trial begin within 30 days of the appeal.
“Every day my clients are deprived of these animals, the animals are out of their routine, and [the Mogensens] are unable to continue their business, causing real and serious detriment and harm,” she told the judge then.
Welch argued that other similar cases had allowed extensions beyond the 30day window, and indicated her intention to file a motion to delay the trial.
However, this was not submitted by the court’s Feb. 6 deadline for filing motions.
Also overruled was the zoo attorneys’ motion to deny the government’s notice of appeal of the General District Court’s ruling, submitted the day after the zoo’s notice.
Though zoo attorneys argued that the government did not have the ability to appeal a decision from General District Court, the judge determined that right of appeal to higher courts necessitated the ability to appeal out of General District Court.
The judge also ruled against the zoo attorneys’ motion to have seized animals returned to Virginia, saying that, if it is decided that the animals are to be returned, he can order a party to the case to bring them back to the state.
However, Russell did grant the motion for a bill of particulars, submitted by Harrigan.
As Harrigan wrote in that motion, “The purpose of the bill of particulars is to ‘state sufficient facts regarding the crime to inform an accused in advance of the offence for which he is to be tried.’” The trial will be heard by a jury, and is anticipated to last four days.
