Morristown’s former human services director, Tommy Alexander, has won an appeal to overturn his conviction on animal cruelty charges.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tommy neglected his dog Satin, or that he even owned the pet during a 30-day period in late 2011 that was at the heart of the case tried in Rockaway Township Municipal Court last year, ruled state Superior Court Judge Mary Gibbons Whipple.
“The State has not presented any evidence which would refute the defendant’s story as recounted numerous times to numerous individuals, and this court disagrees with the municipal court’s assessment of defendant’s credibility,” the Judge stated in her written decision, overturning all four counts against Tommy and vacating several thousand dollars in fines and court fees.
“We are just happy that justice has been done and that this nightmare is over for Tom. He deserved better than this from the town he faithfully served for over 35 years,” Tommy’s attorney, Gary Moylen, said on Monday night.
Tommy had testified that he gave his dog to an acquaintance from Essex County because he was moving to a Morristown apartment that did not accept pets.
When he discovered the dog back in his old neighborhood, and in bad shape, he quickly contacted Morristown’s health officer for assistance, he testified.
Because Tommy was her supervisor’s boss, the health officer referred the matter to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which investigated and filed charges. Charges from the town health officer followed.
Municipal Judge Gerard Smith had problems with Tommy’s story, and found testimony from the health officer, Samantha Judson; Veterinarian Margaret Kearns; and SPCA Officer Jeffrey Hunker, to be more credible.
Samantha and Margaret testified that the dog was severely emaciated, with protruding ribs and a weight of about half what it should have been. The animal reeked of stale urine and its nails were so long that it could hardly walk, suggesting a long period of confinement, according to the veterinarian.
But reviewing the findings, Judge Whipple sided with defense witnesses Patrick Moylen and John Terry, friends of Tommy’s, and Tommy’s son, Thomas E. Alexander, who all related conversations in which Tommy explained that he was giving away his dog.
“None of these three witnesses saw the defendant’s dog after defendant asserted he had given it away,” Judge Whipple wrote.
“Moreover, this court cannot ignore the implausibility of the State’s implicit suggestion that defendant abused his dog for an entire month and then turned the animal in of his own volition,” she said.
Initially, Judge Smith ruled that under state law Tommy, a Morristown employee for 35 years, would have to forfeit his $90,000 job as chief housing inspector because the alleged cruelty to his unlicensed pet touched upon his official duties. At the time he was charged, Tommy was the human services director and oversaw the town’s animal control operations.
Judge Smith reversed that decision, and Tommy, who was 61 at the time, resigned because he was battling liver cancer. This spring he ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic primary for town council.
During the trial in Rockaway Township, Tommy testified that he gave the dog to a man named Maleek Frankie Raheem, who he said visited his Morristown neighborhood on behalf of the Nation of Islam. Judge Smith expressed doubts about that story. But Judge Whipple found no direct evidence to disprove it, or to support charges that Tommy deprived the animal of food and water.
“The circumstantial evidence provided cannot sustain the State’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt…,” Judge Whipple concluded in her ruling, dated June 26.
The SUPERIOR Court Judge ruled on facts. Is that not enough?
Margret Brady asks for the facts. All the facts are contained in Judge Whipple’s clear and unambiguous reversal, which is based wholly on the trial transcript and the testimony of both the defense and the prosecution witnesses. ALL the witnesses testified that Mr. Alexander maintained from the outset that he gave the dog away nearly a month before it reappeared in Morristown in its emaciated condition, at which time it was immediately turned over to the animal warden. No one testified to the contrary. The town’s case was based solely on suspicion that Mr. Alexander had suddenly decided to starve and mistreat a dog that he had owned for several years. Not surprisingly, Judge Whipple found this incredible.
So let us know the facts. What really did happen to the dog? Who was responsible? Did the dog have a license?
Shame on the Morristown Administration for spearheading this ridiculous sideshow. Shame on the judge. Shame on any lawyer or employee that participated in this planned cover-up.
Connections and whom you are tied to shows no bearing when lawful TRUTH appears. Lets hope in the future employees will simply do their jobs as trained and not what they are told to do by vendetta minded so called bosses. Remembering that their training is actual, lawful, and in most cases their so called vendetta bosses have no expertise in areas which they direct you to execute in unlawful situations.
There will be additional cases coming forward that are equally unlawful as Thomas Alexander’s.
Knowledge is important.