Davis threw out the case. Strangely, in a later call on a case, the issue was raised again but an officer reportedly objected to the court that this dog was Eiserman’s partner for 12 years. In that case, Davis granted a two-week continuance. That leaves me a tad confused.
Most judges (and most defense lawyers) would view the death of a family member to be a valid reason for a continuance. Not only are dogs like Umberto partners of officers, they are often kept in the homes of officers as part of their families. I fail to see what such a loss would not be a valid basis for a continuance. However, one officer said that when he later confronted Davis, the judge said that police could always “rearrest” the defendant.
Davis is retired and currently serving as a Senior Magisterial District Judge by special appointment. He has stated in interviews that “[w]hen I first started in the judicial system it was a time of turmoil, and the Chester courts were not operated the way that I thought that they should . . . A wrong decision can mess up a life. That’s what I attempted to do, to make things right, and to bring professionalism and dignity to the district court system.” While I understand the need to keep to a schedule (particularly when a criminal defendant is facing incarceration), I do not believe that such rulings bring “dignity” to the courts.
Source: Delco Times
Kudos: Michael Blott