Share thisCourt-Appointed Prosecutor Denies Cruelty Charges Against University of Wisconsin
In a significant and initially successful effort, an animal rights group filed a criminal complaint against a large public research university and its investigators for violating a state anti-cruelty statute in their government-funded studies of animals. While the violation seemed apparent, the special prosecutor appointed to investigate the matter decided not to pursue charges in the case.
This case is an alarming example of how ambiguous terminology and the failure to heed state anti-cruelty laws can jeopardize research efforts. In spite of what appeared to be a straightforward violation of state law, a special prosecutor appointed to this case determined not to file a criminal complaint in this matter. Instead, he scolded the University for ignoring its state laws. This case illustrates how the ambiguity of one word—decompression—can affect the outcome of a legal complaint; the logical reasoning used to invalidate this complaint; and the errors that a large state university and its officers committed when they failed to heed the anti-cruelty laws of their own state. The abbreviated texts below are excerpted from the relevant court documents. For a complete and very interesting review of this case, please consult the original texts.
On 16 March 2010, the Alliance for Animals and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) asked the Dane County Circuit Court, Branch 4, of the state of Wisconsin permission to file a private criminal complaint against several researchers, staff members of the Diving Physiology Laboratory, and supervising officials of the University of Wisconsin (UW), Madison, for allegedly violating Wisconsin state law § 951.025, when they conducted Navy-sponsored decompression studies on sheep. The purpose of these studies was to determine the effects of deep-sea decompression on crews of disabled submarines and recreational divers. Wisconsin state law § 951.025 prohibits killing animals by decompression.1,2
Sheep in these UW experiments were placed in hyperbaric chambers with oxygen levels similar to those under 90-feet of water. The pressure was then decompressed while investigators studied the adverse effects this caused on the sheep, in order to understand the physiological, and medical basis of this condition, and improve the rescue and treatment of disabled submarines and other persons in such situations.
Wisconsin Statute § 968.02(3) requires judges to determine, before authorizing the issuance of a complaint, that:
- The district attorney has refused, or was unavailable to issue a complaint, and that
- There is probable cause to believe that the person to be charged has committed an offense.
On 2 June 2010, having verified that both these requirements were met, and after an open ex parte hearing with PETA’s attorney on 1 April 2010, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Amy Smith determined that:
- There was probable cause to believe that those who decompressed the sheep acted either intentionally or negligently in many, if not all the documents the petitioners obtained from the University via open records requests.
- Probable cause existed that some of the University of Wisconsin’s employees have violated Wis. Stat. §951.025.
- PETA has shown facts establishing probable cause that some individuals at the University of Wisconsin, intentionally or negligently, violated Wisconsin law that prohibits killing animals by decompression (Wis. Stats. § 951.025) either directly or as parties to a crime (Wis. Stats. § 951.025).
- Wisconsin law does not contain special rules or exceptions in this situation, even for a state university.
- Exercising discretion similar to that of a prosecutor is appropriate when evaluating whether to bring charges, and that a Special Prosecutor may exercise appropriate prosecutorial discretion as additional information becomes available.