Two guilty of dog abuse
James M. Jackson, left, and Amanda B. Melendez were arrested March 20 and charged with 84 misdemeanor animal cruelty, care and licensing offenses after animal control officers found more than a dozen dogs and other animals in their vacant rental home in the 100 block of Duke Street March 14.
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
By Nate Delesline III
Published: May 15, 2008
A Culpeper man and woman each must pay $1,625 in fines after county authorities removed 13 dogs from substandard conditions last month.
James M. Jackson, 25 and Amanda B. Melendez, 30, were arrested March 20 and charged with 84 misdemeanor animal cruelty, care and licensing offenses after animal control officers found more than a dozen dogs and other animals in their vacant rental home in the 100 block of Duke Street March 14.
General District Court Judge Roger Morton on Wednesday found Jackson and Melendez guilty of 13 charges each of failure to provide adequate, properly cleaned shelter, rabies vaccination violations and dog-license violations. Morton dismissed the more serious animal-cruelty charges, which carried a possible sentence of one year in jail, a fine of $2,500 or both.
Melendez testified that the home was vacant because they were moving and did not have anyplace else to keep the dogs. She also testified that she attended to the animals daily and was just at the residence the 24 hours before.
Morton, however, questioned the logic of leaving the animals to repeatedly soil the house. He also cited pictures entered into evidence by the commonwealth that depict the filthy conditions.
“It’s not plausible to me that this all occurred in a 24-hour period,” Morton said.
The home’s owner, Thu-Nhult Dinh, testified that she went to check on her property and noticed several pit bulls inside the home when she looked in the window. Dinh also testified that she noticed a fecal odor coming from the home and called Animal Control.
Culpeper County Animal Control Officer Kim Seibert testified that when she arrived the morning of March 14, Dinh gave her permission to enter the home and remove the dogs.
“There were feces throughout the area and the dogs were licking the condensation off the windows,” Siebert told the court.
Seibert said they removed seven adult pit bulls, six puppies, an iguana and a parakeet. One of the puppies died several days later.
Morton overruled a defense argument questioning Dinh’s authority as landlord. He said that, as the property owner, Dinh had the authority to enter the home or direct someone else to enter in order to inspect or maintain the property.
Jackson, who did not testify, insisted the dogs were treated well.
“The dogs stayed taken care of — they were like my kids,” he said.
Seibert said the some of the dogs had mange when they were removed but they have since recovered. She added all of the animals are now doing well.
Nate Delesline III can be reached at 825-0771 ext. 110 or .
Page 1 of 1

Reader Reactions
Posted by ( julesss ) on May 21, 2008 at 3:34 pm
we have the FACTS Police posting here now. How dare anyone rely on a CSE article to form an opinion of a judge who already had a reputation of being a bit lenient in the past. I can’t believe some of are willing to form our very own opinions without consulting “knowthefacts” first. someone who spent whole post stating “maybe” over and over and seemed to overlook posting ... facts
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( knowthefacts ) on May 17, 2008 at 10:03 am
Why bash the judge, once again maybe the info that was initially given was incorrect. Maybe he didn’t feel there was creulty in this case. Maybe the info about them being left along for one week or two weeks was false. People really should keep their comments to theirself if they don’t know the facts>>>Just Maybe when the judge seen the pics and read the vet report, just maybe then he felt there was no creulty happening. And once again I would like to know just how many people was actually in the court room to hear the FACTS. Just know the FACTS before making judgements>>>>>>>
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( John47 ) on May 15, 2008 at 8:25 pm
If I ever get a speeding ticket in this town, I hope I have Judge Morton, what kind of judge just hands out fines!! Thanks Judge Morton for giving criminals a slap on the hand so they can do this all over again!!!!!!
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( anmlluvr ) on May 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Absolutely no excuse for this kind of abuse, they should be made to stay in an empty house without food or water, leave out the toilet paper too. They’ll be back in business with the leniency shown to them by the judge!
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( semper fi mom ) on May 15, 2008 at 10:40 am
‘Morton dismissed the more serious animal-cruelty charges, which carried a possible sentence of one year in jail, a fine of $2,500 or both.’ WHY??? But, from what I’ve read over the years, Morton is rather lenient. THey were licking condensation from windows for water...one had mange...a puppy died… from 84 counts down to 13...Judge Morton - how can you justify your “justice?” If I ever break the law - that’s the judge I want.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( italiandude431 ) on May 15, 2008 at 10:35 am
i agree, they should have been more then fined. i was lucky enough to get my say in the matter last night over the dinner table with Seibert, who is mu mother.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( KTrick ) on May 15, 2008 at 10:12 am
Some people need a pit bull for protection, so I assume that, for whatever reason, these folks needed 13 TIMES the protection,so they should be afforded some leeway.
As it stands now, I need no protection via pitbull, unless some Al Queda moved into my neighborhood.
However, HPC might need several hundred to help them protect Culpeper, so these dogs - when healthy - should be donated to HPC to protect them from dangerous “Illegals.”
I’m just here to help.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Sandalwood ) on May 15, 2008 at 9:01 am
Fined?! That’s it? Those two should be thankful I wasn’t the judge.
Report Inappropriate Comment