McKeesport woman found guilty of animal cruelty
Magisterial District Judge Eugene Riazzi ruled Monday that a McKeesport woman is guilty of animal cruelty.
Juanita Mitchell, 39, was fined $300 fine plus court costs for injuries to her two dogs, which were discovered by McKeesport police officer Mark Marino when he rescued the animals from Mitchell's burning home at at 2709 Palmgreen St. on Feb. 21.
Dog enforcement officer Ken Ferree said one of the animals, a Rottweiler named Leah, was 35-40 pounds underweight and suffering from an infected neck wound cased by a frayed, embedded cable.
He said the dog was taken to White Oak Animal Safe Haven for veterinary care.
The second dog, a pit bull mix named Lala, ran away, but later returned.
Riazzi found Mitchell guilty of failure to have a license and proper vaccinations for the Rottweiler, violations that each carry a $25 fine plus costs.
Mitchell agreed to relinquish custody of the Rottweiler to White Oak Animal Safe Haven.
She said she took in the Rottweiler as a stray because her children, particularly her 16-year-old son, wanted the dog. Mitchell said her children assured her the dogs were being cared for.
“Maybe I should have looked after my son better,” she said. “But I'm not guilty of hurting the dog.”
White Oak Animal Safe Haven president Ina Jean Marton said the Rottweiler should soon be available for adoption.
The pit bull mix was running loose approximately a block away from where the fire occurred when it was picked up by Ferree and lodged in his kennel on March 18.
Mitchell said the dog was being watched by a sitter at the time.
Stacy Lee is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-664-9161, ext. 1970, or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.