November 5, 2013

Supreme Court skeptical of chemical weapons charge in love triangle case

A Pennsylvania woman fights her conviction under an anti-terrorism law after she tried to poison her pregnant rival.

Jesse J. Holland
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – A love triangle that ended with a woman poisoning her pregnant rival spawned a debate over chemical weapons, international relations, federalism and chocolate at the Supreme Court Tuesday, with justices left trying to make sense of how a jealous wife ended up being prosecuted for violating an international chemical weapons treaty.

click image to enlarge

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy said it “seems unimaginable that you would bring this prosecution,” while hearing a case involving an illicit love triangle that ended with a woman poisoning her pregnant rival.

2009 Associated Press File Photo

Carol Anne Bond of Lansdale, Pa., is challenging her conviction, saying that the federal government’s decision to charge her using a chemical weapons law was an unconstitutional reach into a state’s power to handle what her lawyer calls a domestic dispute.

Bond, unable to carry children of her own, was excited when her best friend Myrlina Haynes announced her pregnancy. But Bond later found out her husband of more than 14 years, Clifford Bond, was the father.

Bond, a laboratory technician, stole the chemical 10-chloro-10H phenoxarsine from the company where she worked and purchased potassium dichromate on Amazon.com. Both can be deadly if ingested or exposed to the skin at sufficiently high levels.

Bond combined and spread the chemicals on Haynes’ door handle and in the tailpipe of Haynes’ car. Haynes noticed the bright orange compound but could not get local police interested in investigating. She called at least a dozen times, but police suggested that she take her car to a car wash and suggested that the chemicals might be cocaine.

When Haynes found the compound on her mailbox, she complained again to police, who told her to call the United States Postal Service. Federal investigators videotaped Bond going back and forth between Haynes’ car and the mailbox with the chemicals. Postal inspectors arrested Bond, saying that Bond tried to poison Haynes at least 24 times between 2006 and 2007.

“The state of Pennsylvania exercised its prosecutorial discretion not to pursue this matter,” Bond’s lawyer said.

But a federal grand jury indicted her on two counts of possessing and using a chemical weapon, applying a federal anti-terrorism law. The law was passed to fulfill the United States’ international treaty obligations under the 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction.

Bond pleaded guilty and was given six years in prison. This is her second time in front of the Supreme Court. In 2011, the court unanimously sided with Bond to allow her to challenge her conviction despite arguments from federal prosecutors and judges that she should not even be allowed to appeal the verdict. Lower courts subsequently rejected the appeal, leading to her current challenge.

A couple of justices were very critical of government prosecutors for choosing even to prosecute Bond using the chemical weapons law. “If you told ordinary people that you were going to prosecute Ms. Bond for using a chemical weapon, they would be flabbergasted,” said Justice Samuel Alito. “It’s so far outside of the ordinary meaning of the word.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy said it “seems unimaginable that you would bring this prosecution.”

The chemical weapons law makes it illegal to “develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon.”

Justices went down a long list of everyday items that could be prosecuted under the law since they could cause harm to humans or animals, including the use of kerosene, matches, performance-enhancing drugs used in sports, and even vinegar — which would poison goldfish if introduced to a fishbowl. Alito later drove home his point by saying under the law, even innocent ordinary actions could become questionable if the government’s power is not limited.

“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?” he said to laughter from the courtroom. “On Halloween, we gave them chocolate bars. Chocolate is poison to dogs, so it’s a toxic chemical under the chemical weapons” law.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors




Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)