Forum Archives

Return to Forum List

Supreme Court and Infidelity

You are not logged in. Login here or register.

Tred posted 6/2/2014 12:42 PM

Not sure if this woman will be convicted on another charge, but apparently she got away with trying to poison her husbands AP.

Supreme Court: Poisoning your husband’s lover doesn’t violate chemical weapons treaty (Reuters)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the federal government wrongly used a chemical weapons law to prosecute a Pennsylvania microbiologist convicted of trying to poison her husband’s pregnant lover.

On a unanimous vote, the court handed a win to Carol Anne Bond, who admitted trying to poison her former friend, Myrlinda Haynes, with toxic chemicals she took from work. Bond sprinkled lethal compounds on Haynes’s mailbox, car door handles and house doorknob between November 2006 and June 2007.

The court did not resolve a broader question regarding whether the chemical weapons law raises concerns about the power of Congress to enact domestic laws that apply international treaties the U.S. government has signed.

Bond, of Lansdale, Pennsylvania, was sentenced to six years in prison after entering a guilty plea that gave her a right to appeal.

The poison burned Haynes’s thumb, but she was otherwise unharmed. Bond, who has no children, hatched her plan after finding out that Haynes was pregnant and her husband was the father.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote on behalf of the court that the law in question did not cover Bond’s conduct, which he described as a “simple assault.”

There is no indication Congress meant the statute to reach local criminal conduct, Roberts wrote. He noted, for example, that the chemicals used by Bond “are not of the sort that an ordinary person would associate with instruments of chemical warfare.”

The case is Bond v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-158.

Neithan posted 6/2/2014 16:59 PM

Why on earth would she be charged with a chemical weapons treaty violation and not attempted murder, or assault with a deadly weapon?

Frankly, I'm glad that the court ruled that regular US citizens shouldn't be charged with treaty violations.

I suspect the local cops or prosecutors dropped the ball somehow on this one, and the state (or Feds) were somehow unable to charge her under customary law.

LostSamurai posted 6/2/2014 19:29 PM

I guess I better be careful on what I do to OM after tomorrow...


jjct posted 6/2/2014 19:47 PM

Titillating me?
Bottom line.
Supreme Court
is NOT all that supreme.
It's just all we have to deal with.
On this Earth.
before we die.

I wanted that to be somehow a poem to you my friend,
something that touched my heart,
and all of ours,
before we died.
I'll scream your name
have mercy
as I go.
Into that dreamless sleep.

Return to Forum List

© 2002-2018 ®. All Rights Reserved.