Livermore Cat Shooting and the Injustice System

November 2006

Dear Pet Lover:

This is the story of an animal cruelty case with a bizarre twist. Randa Burrows witnessed the shooting of a cat, reported the incident to the police, and filed a police report. The cruelty case was never tried, but Randa found herself being sued in Court for libel and false arrest. The story of this injustice follows.

On September 19, 2005 Randa Burrows was walking her dog on the Arroyo Mocho Trail that winds through many residential neighborhoods in Livermore California. Randa said, “I heard a cat screaming in pain. It sounded like the cat was being tortured; I started to run in the direction of the cries, when a cat came running from the backyard of 473 Daiseyfield Drive.” Randa heard a popping and cracking sound and looked up to see another cat dropping branch to branch from a tree, and a man aiming an air gun rifle repeatedly shooting as the cat fell. Randa screamed at the man telling him she was going to call the police. He smirked and said, “Go ahead it’s my yard, I can do whatever I want on my property.” Randa said, “No you can’t, you can’t shoot animals.” While Randa kept the man busy the second cat managed to escape by running past her.

Randa called the Livermore Police Department. When officers Batrez and Custodia arrived Randa gave them a detailed description of the man. The officers then contacted the homeowner who was identified by his California Drivers License as James Cable (see photo at left). According to the police report by Officer Batrez, he asked Cable if he was shooting a rifle in his backyard and he said, “Yes”. I asked him to explain to me what happened. Cable said, “I was shooting cats in my backyard because I don’t like cats, I can do what ever I want on my property.” Officer Batrez then walked over to where Randa Burrows was waiting and said, “Well that’s it, he admitted it, you can have him arrested.” Randa signed the citizen’s arrest form. James Cable was handcuffed, charged with Felony Cruelty to Animals, and taken away for booking and then released on $10,000 bail.

The next day Randa looked for the injured cats and handed out fliers alerting neighbors to check their pets for injuries, and to report missing or injured cats in the area.

Randa had worked in the Criminal Justice System for a total of ten years, first at the Pleasanton Municipal Court and then as a Fingerprint Technician for the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department. She was about to find out what can happen to a witness in the good old boys system of priorities.

Between September 19 and October 19 Randa made several calls to the District Attorney’s office and left messages, but none were returned. Randa wrote a letter to the Alameda County District Attorney’s office asking that they hold Cable responsible for this crime. The letter went unanswered as well. On Cable’s scheduled arraignment date, October 20, 2005, Randa spent time at the courthouse waiting for the case to be called. James Cable was called but was a no show. A deputyDA approached the bench and said something to the Judge that was inaudible to the public. Then the next case was called. Later Randa called the court to ask what the status of the case was. She was told that the office of Alameda County District Attorney, Thomas Orloff, declined to prosecute the case.

On December 29 Randa received a subpoena for a Small Claims court trial. Cable, the admitted cat shooter, was suing Randa, the witness, for $5000 claiming false arrest, libel and slander through contacts with his neighbors and newspaper reports.

In January 2006 Randa called Voices for Pets asking for help. She told of repeated harassing phone calls Cable made from his place of employment, the Clorox Company in Pleasanton. She told of a man who twice parked his pickup truck down the street and pounded on her door yelling, “I have some papers for you, what’s the matter Randa, are you afraid of paper?” This was not the behavior of a professional subpoena server. It was intended to intimidate a witness who had reported a crime. Randa did not open her door. Cable could have sent the subpoena by registered mail.

On January 19, I met with Randa at the Arroyo Mocho trail. She pointed to a spot forty feet away where she said Cable stood as he repeatedly fired the air gun at the cat as it fell from the tree. This was clearly visible through a wire mesh fence. Cable was firing in the direction of a popular trail used by people who walk their dogs, push babies in strollers, bicycle and jog. Any shot that missed the cat was a danger to all.

After Randa left I decided to videotape the location. While I was filming Cable came out holding 20-inch pruning shears with curved metal blades. I continued to film and Cable said, “You don’t have permission to film me.” I said, “I am on public property.” Cable said, “The sidewalk is still my property.” I said, “The sidewalk is not your property.” At this point Cable came at me with his face only one foot from mine. I said, “Ok” and walked backward10 feet into the street. My backing away only seemed to encourage his aggression. Cable came at me and with his open hand hit the camera, shoving it into my eye. I decided it was time to stop backing away. Continuing to film, I said, “Oh you’re going to threaten me?” Cable’s aggression began to disappear and he said, “ I’m not threatening you.” I said, “You do have a weapon in your hand, and you are approaching me in a threatening manner.” At that point Cable turned and walked back into his house. I got into my car and left.

People who hurt defenseless victims are cowards. They use intimidation, aggression and violence, but only against those they perceive to be defenseless.

I contacted San Francisco attorney Corey Evans who has been available for advice and done pro bono work for Voices for Pets. He felt that it was such a frivolous lawsuit that Randa was likely to prevail in Small Claims court.

Randa went to the Livermore Police Department to obtain a copy of the police report to aid in her defense. A clerk told her she did not have a right to the report.

It’s interesting to note that Cable, the admitted cat shooter who had been arrested, had a right to the police report, but Randa, a witness who was being sued, did not!

On January 6 Randa went to the courthouse to obtain a subpoena for the police report. She hand delivered it to the Livermore Police Department. The Custodian of Records, Sonia Cardinale, also told her she could not have the report because it would have to be OK’d by the city attorney. This would take a few days and she would call Randa when it was ready.

On January 19, I went with Randa to the Livermore Police Department. A clerk told us the report was still not ready. We asked to speak with the Supervisor. The Custodian of Records, Sonia Cardinale, came out and said that she could not give the police report to Randa but she would send it to the court the next morning.

The next day with less than two weeks to prepare for her defense Randa went to the court clerk’s office. After standing in line, Randa was told that the police report had arrived but was in a sealed envelope that could only be opened by the Judge.

At the Small Claims court on February 14, Judge Jacob Blea III began the proceedings by saying that the allotted time for the trial would be 30-45 minutes. Cable went on and on with accusations of false arrest and libel, stating Law and often being corrected by the Judge. Cable talked about the evils of cats and stated that he did not harm them. He said the BB gun that he used was low power and would not hurt them. Cable said he had the gun in his car and offered to let the Judge shoot him. The Judge declined but allowed Cable to ramble on using all the time allotted and then continued the case to February 21.

February 21 was Randa’s time to speak. She asked Judge Blea if there was a transcript or tape recording of the previous hearing. The Judge said no, and that Randa would have to rely on his memory. Randa asked if he had received the police report. Judge Blea said yes that it was in a sealed envelope and that he had not opened it yet. Randa requested a copy to aid in her defense. The Judge opened the envelope, quickly read the report and handed it to the clerk to make a copy for Randa. This was the first time Randa had seen the police report. The report confirmed Randa’s memory of what she had witnessed, her statement to police, Cable’s confession, and Officer Batrez telling Randa she could have Cable arrested. Randa testified about what she had witnessed and of handing out fliers alerting neighbors to check their pets for injuries and to report missing or injured cats to law enforcement.

Later that week Randa received Judge Blea’s decision in the mail. Without explanation Judge Blea ordered Randa to pay the admitted cat shooter James Cable $5,000.

Most Judges are able to leave their biases out of the court when they put on a robe. What could have been Judge Blea’s reasoning? It was not straightforward statutory law. It was not grounded in legal authority. Was his caseload too heavy? Was he simply incompetent?

Randa made an appointment with Attorney Evans. After talking with Randa and reading the documents that Randa brought with her, he agreed to represent her by appealing Judge Blea’s decision in Superior Court. This would cost Randa $3,500.

On May 5, 2006 in the Superior Court in Pleasanton, California the appeal of the Small Claims Court decision of Judge Blea, ordering Randa to pay $5,000 to James Cable was to be heard by Judge Christine Maruza.

Randa’s attorney was well prepared. He researched the laws of Libel, Slander and False Arrest. He subpoenaed Officer Batrez to testify. He searched the Internet and found the rifle Cable had used to shoot the cats, a model 840 Grizzly. This rifle fires both BBs and pellets at a velocity of 360 feet per second. Cable’s claim that the gun he used would not hurt the cats is obviously false. Evans was prepared to question both Cable and his wife.

The case of Cable versus Burrows was called. The defendant’s witness, Officer Batrez, was not in the courtroom and Randa’s attorney was unwilling to proceed. From the bench Judge Maruza called the Livermore Police Department and contacted Officer Batrez who said he had not received the subpoena. The Judge rescheduled the hearing for May 19th and ordered Officer Batrez to appear.

On May 19th 2006, eight months from the day that Cable shot the cats, Randa’s ordeal would come to a close. Officer Batrez testified first. Randa’s attorney, Evans, briefly questioned the officer as to what he witnessed the day of Cable’s arrest and to the accuracy of the police report.

On cross-examination of Officer Batrez by Cable, Cable questioned his alleged statement from the police report. “I was shooting cats in my backyard because I don’t like cats, I can do whatever I want on my property.” Cable asked, “You don’t remember me using those words, do you?” Officer Batrez
said, “I specifically remember you saying that.” Officer Batrez was excused to return to his duties.

As the plaintiff, Cable went first to present his case, going on and on about how Randa had slandered and libeled him to his neighbors, by handing out fliers, and to the community in the newspapers and on the internet. At one point Cable became more animated as he talked about the evils of cats and how they were a menace to society. During this tirade the judge had a quizzical look on her face. Cable continued to ramble on about what an upstanding citizen he is.

Finally, before Randa had a chance to present her defense, Judge Maruza cut Cable off and said, “I’ve heard enough, I’m ready to rule.” The Judge quoted the laws of Libel, Slander, and False arrest. Judge Maruza said, “There was plenty of reason to arrest you.” I find in favor of the Defendant, the Defendant does not owe the Plaintiff any money.

Outside the courtroom there were subdued high fives and hugs. Yet it seemed like a hollow victory. True, Randa did not have to pay an admitted cat shooter five thousand dollars, but because of the prosecutorial priorities of Alameda County District Attorney Thomas Orloff, there was no justice for the cats who were only trying to live and enjoy life like the rest of us. Cable was given his gun back. Randa did what law enforcement say they need the public to do. She came forward, got involved, and lived under the strain of this injustice for eight months. She had many sleepless nights wondering what had happened to the cats. Did they simply crawl into a dark space to suffer and die? She never gave up. She took time off work and did everything she could think of to obtain a measure of justice. In addition to lost work and other expenses Randa had to pay attorneys fees of $3500, a very generous discounted fee for attorney Corey Evans to prepare for and take the case through trial. This, Randa should not have to pay. Voices for Pets cannot ask our members and supporters to pay for Randa’s entire legal defense. We need your donations to help pay Voices for Pets ongoing expenses and indeed our very survival. However, Voices for Pets is donating $200 for Randa’s legal defense, and we are asking other animal welfare organizations to chip in. We will let you know how things go in a future update.

Four of the many victims of air guns that have come to Voices For Pets. People who use these weapons to maim and kill neighborhood pets are cowards. They enjoy having power and dominance over defenseless victims. This is the same mindset as people who victimize children, women, and the elderly.