Skip to content
News
Link copied to clipboard

Local domestic dispute is heard by U.S. Supreme Court

LANSDALE Flabbergasted was the word U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. used Tuesday to describe his reaction to federal prosecutors' decision to classify as a chemical-weapons attack a Lansdale woman's attempt to poison her romantic rival.

LANSDALE Flabbergasted was the word U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. used Tuesday to describe his reaction to federal prosecutors' decision to classify as a chemical-weapons attack a Lansdale woman's attempt to poison her romantic rival.

Other justices shared his disbelief. And lawyer Eric Reed, for one, wasn't at all surprised.

"Bad cases make bad law," he said. "It was something we tried to impart on prosecutors years ago, but they didn't listen. Now, look where we're at."

Reed represented Carol Anne Bond six years ago during her prosecution under a law enacted to bring the United States in line with an international chemical-weapons treaty. As the high court took up her appeal Tuesday, Reed said the justices' reactions offered vindication to those initial objections.

Bond, now 42, is challenging her 2007 conviction, contending it amounted to an unconstitutional step into the state's authority to handle local crimes.

But she has never denied her guilt.

After learning in 2006 that her husband had impregnated her best friend, Bond, a former laboratory technician, spread deadly chemicals around the woman's Norristown home.

A federal grand jury indicted her under a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, a law passed by Congress in 1998. She eventually served six years in prison.

Federal prosecutors in Philadelphia have defended the case against Bond, saying she and others like her should be charged alongside dangerous terrorists. They say the Supreme Court paved the way decades ago for Congress to supersede state jurisdiction when it comes to enforcement of international treaties.

But Tuesday, Alito quickly moved past the personal elements of her story, instead fascinated by the implications of her case.

"If you told ordinary people that you were going to prosecute Ms. Bond for using a chemical weapon, they would be flabbergasted," he said. "It's so far out of the ordinary meaning of the word."

His comments set off an at-times testy exchange, as justices rolled through a laundry list of other items - including kerosene, matches, and vinegar - that might be classified under the law as weapons.

"Would it shock you if I told you that a few days ago my wife and I distributed toxic chemicals to a great number of children?" Alito joked. "On Halloween we gave them chocolate bars. Chocolate is poison to dogs."

Robert Goldman, one of Bond's original attorneys, attended Tuesday's hearing and described the justices' reaction as near "uniform consensus that this was a foolish prosecution to bring."

Any decision the court makes could carry serious constitutional consequences. Should justices move toward limiting what treaty terms mean, they could significantly alter ongoing negotiations like those involving Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons, said Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

"One of the very things we are trying to sort out right now in Syria . . . is where the line is between peaceful uses and warlike uses" of chemicals, he said.

The court is expected to rule on Bond's case by summer.

jroebuck@phillynews.com

215-925-2649

@jeremyrroebuck

This article contains information from the Associated Press.