By MELISSA N. WARREN / Review Appeal Staff Reporter

The multiple rulings in dog breeder Jennifer Siliski’s motion hearing Monday left both the defense and prosecuting attorneys seemingly pleased.

“I’m very pleased with the rulings on the motion to suppress, the motion for a change in venue and the motion to dismiss the indictment,” said District Attorney General Ron Davis, referring to just a few of Judge Lee Davies’ decisions in favor of the state. “If she had won the motion to dismiss the indictment, the whole case would have been out the door. People don’t realize what a great victory that was.”

Rebecca Byrd, Siliski’s attorney, did not return phone calls yesterday but did make comments Monday afternoon indicating how she was equally pleased with the hearing’s results.

“I’m very happy my client is getting her pets back,” Byrd said. “I’ll be glad to have them returned into proper care. ... I’ll know better (if they’ve been in proper care) once I see the animals.”

The animals Byrd referred to were reportedly housed in “deplorable conditions” at the breeder’s home kennel until a Jan. 22 police raid. Officials have testified that they found feces, standing urine, IV bags, needles, trash and some 230 neglected animals in the Siliski home. Since then, the more than 200 Siliski dogs and 14 cats, as well as any offspring, have been cared for at the expense of the county by Williamson County Animal Control (WCAC).

Davies did rule yesterday that six of those animals — Maltese dogs that are listed as house pets — should be given back to Siliski, with the stipulation that animal control officers make a short-notice visit once a week to ensure proper care and conditions. The other dogs and cats will not be returned to her home, but they were acknowledged to be Siliski’s property, allowing her the option to sell the animals.

The judge’s order caused an audible murmur in the courtroom, mainly from the animal control volunteers who have helped care for the animals over the past four months.

But Davis said the question of whether Siliski had property rights of the animals was never the question. He also reiterated that the DA’s office did not make a concession by giving the six house pets back to the woman, as there was no evidence of abuse to those specific animals.

“We won all the major issues, but this one issue is causing so much emotion,” Davis said. “We were able to successfully keep the (non-house pet) animals from going back to her. The ruling was that she’s allowed to decide where the other animals go as long as safeguards are put into place to see to it that the animals are properly cared for. They are her property. ... At some point in time, she was going to be allowed to make disposition of them. My preference would have been to wait until after the case was tried, but the underlying fact was they were always her property and that was the basis of the court’s ruling.”

The DA also pointed out that the return of the house pets did bring about the judge’s ruling for an expedited trial, which is now set to begin Aug. 18.

“I would consider returning some of these dogs back to your client in return for a fast trial,” Davies said at the hearing. “You might want to talk to your client and see what’s more important. I hate for the county to spend all this money on a bunch of dogs.”

The cost of caring for the animals, estimated on May 14 to be in excess $110,000 by the county mayor’s office, is another piece of the puzzle that Siliski’s attorney, the county and the DA’s office will have to sort out.

“At this point we’re still discussing the ruling with the DA’s office to ensure that we’re all on the same page and appropriately follow the court’s orders,” County Attorney Bill Squires said.

According to reports, more than 160 of the dogs have been fostered out to screened volunteers. Now, those caregivers must bring the animals back to WCAC, and Siliski is ordered to identify which ones belong to her and which ones she was housing for other owners. Once that task has been completed and all vet records have been compared, Siliski can begin to sell the dogs to those who might want them, the judge said.

“The prices will be negotiated, and there are a lot of factors that will go into that,” Davis said. “I have recommended to the people that cared for these animals that they present Siliski with a bill. ... I believe that the people who have put a lot of money and effort into caring for these dogs and increasing their value may have a right of civil action to recoup that money. That’s also something we will seek to address in a sentencing hearing once we get a conviction on the underlying case.”

The maximum sentence Siliski could receive for the 30 counts of animal cruelty is 11 months and 29 days for each count, totaling 30 years. That sentence, however, depends upon whether the court rules that each count carries a separate sentence.

“We considered whether to seek indictments on all the (230) animals, but my experience in the past has shown that to be a mistake,” Davis added. “It tends to look to the jury like we’re being vindictive and actually hurts the case to do that. The reality of the situation is that the penalty would ultimately be no greater for convictions on 200 animals than it would be on 14 or 15. Upon conviction, we may be able to convince the court to run a few of the sentences as consecutives, but nowhere near 200 consecutive sentences.”

Staff Reporter Melissa N. Warren can be contacted at melissa@reviewappeal.com.