Chemical weapons

Pages23-26
23
international law update Volume 21, January–March 2015
© 2015 International Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
CHEMICAL WEAPONS
In case of criminal charges against
individual who used toxic chemicals
to injure spouse’s lover, U.S. Supreme
ponders whether such acts are
covered by the Implementation Act of
the international Chemical Weapons
Convention
Carol Anne Bond (Bond) is a microbiologist
from Lansdale, Pennsylvania. Bond sought revenge
against Myrlinda Haynes, with whom her husband
had an aair which resulted in a pregnancy. In
retaliation, Bond spread two toxic chemicals on
Haynes’s car, mailbox, and door knob in hopes that
Haynes would develop an uncomfortable rash. On
one occasion, Haynes suered a minor chemical burn
that she treated by rinsing with water, but Bond’s
attempted assaults were otherwise unsuccessful.
Haynes repeatedly called the local police to report
the suspicious substances, but they took no action.
When Haynes found powder on her mailbox, she
called the police again, who told her to call the post
oce. Haynes did so, and postal inspectors placed
surveillance cameras around her home. e cameras
caught Bond opening Haynes’s mailbox, stealing an
envelope, and stung potassium dichromate inside
the muer of Haynes’s car.
Federal prosecutors charged Bond with two
counts of mail theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1708. In addition, they also charged Bond with two
counts of possessing and using a chemical weapon,
in violation of section 229(a) Chemical Weapons
Convention Implementation Act. Bond moved to
dismiss the chemical weapon counts on the ground
that section 229 violates the Tenth Amendment.
When the District Court denied Bond’s motion,
Bond pleaded guilty but reserved right to appeal.
e District Court sentenced Bond to six years
in federal prison plus ve years of supervised
release, and ordered her to pay a $2,000 ne and
$9,902.79 in restitution. Bond appealed, raising
a Tenth Amendment challenge to her conviction.
e ird Circuit initially held that Bond lacked
standing to raise her Tenth Amendment challenge,
but the decision was reversed. e U.S. Supreme
Court granted certiorari the rst time. On remand,
the ird Circuit rejected both Bond’s Tenth
Amendment argument and her additional argument
that section 229 does not encompass her conduct.
e U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari a
second time.
e key issue presented by this case is whether
the Implementation Act extends to a purely local
crime, i.e., an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to
injure her husband’s lover, which resulted in only a
minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with
water.
Since our constitutional structure leaves local
criminal activity primarily to the States, courts
have been reluctant to read federal law in a manner
which would encroach upon that responsibility,
unless Congress has expressly indicated that
the law should have such reach. In this case the
Court concluded that the Chemical Weapons
Convection Implementation Act does not cover the
unremarkable local oense at issue in this case. In
reaching this conclusion the Court states:
“[…] e Convention was conceived as an
eort to update the Geneva Protocol’s protections
and to expand the prohibition on chemical weapons
beyond state actors in wartime. Convention
Preamble, 1974 U.N.T.S. 318 (the State Parties are
‘[d]etermined for the sake of all mankind, to exclude
completely the possibility of the use of chemical
weapons, ... thereby complementing the obligations
assumed under the Geneva Protocol of 1925’). e
Convention aimed to achieve that objective by
prohibiting the development, stockpiling, or use
of chemical weapons by any State Party or person
within a State Party’s jurisdiction. Arts. I, II, VII.
It also established an elaborate reporting process
requiring State Parties to destroy chemical weapons
under their control and submit to inspection and
monitoring by an international organization based
in e Hague, Netherlands. Arts. VIII, IX.”
“e Convention provides:
‘(1) Each State Party to this Convention
undertakes never under any circumstances:

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT