Lansdale woman can challenge terror law in poisoning case

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Lansdale woman who poisoned her husband's pregnant paramour can challenge her conviction under a terrorism law that has kept her in prison since 2007.

The case of Carol Anne Bond had been widely followed because it offered soap-opera facts, acts of judicial origami, and the application of a terror law in a romantic context.

The court's 9-0 decision affirms the right of individuals to challenge the constitutionality of certain federal laws. Bond's lawyers argue that a federal chemical-weapons law infringes on state powers reserved to Pennsylvania under the 10th Amendment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia will now consider the merits of Bond's claim - that a spiteful and jilted spouse ought to be tried under state assault laws, not federal terrorism statutes.

"My client and I are very pleased that the Supreme Court recognized the rights of an individual to challenge an overreaching by the federal government," said Philadelphia lawyer Robert E. Goldman, who persuaded former U.S. Solicitor General Paul G. Clement to argue the case pro bono before the justices in February.

Thursday's Supreme Court opinion reversed a Third Circuit ruling that individuals cannot bring appeals involving states' rights.

The facts in Bond's case, one of a handful of local appeals to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in a decade, are undisputed.

And salacious.

In 2006, Bond, a biologist at Rohm & Haas Co., was thrilled to learn that her best friend, Myrlinda Haynes of Norristown, was pregnant. Bond became enraged, however, when she learned that her husband of 14 years, Clifford, was the father.

Bond's revenge began with a campaign of threatening phone calls and letters against her friend. Although Bond was convicted of a minor state harassment charge, she was not deterred.

From a lab at work, Bond stole an arsenic-based chemical, 10-chloro-10H-phenoxarsine. Online, she ordered potassium dichromate, lethal if ingested in doses of more than one-quarter of a teaspoon.

Over eight months beginning in late 2006, Bond used the chemicals 24 times to try to harm Haynes, sprinkling the substance on a doorknob at Haynes' home, and on her car-door handles and mailbox.

Haynes, who suffered only a chemical burn on her thumb, called authorities. U.S. Postal Inspection Service agents set up a surveillance camera that caught Bond stealing mail and lacing Haynes' car muffler with chemicals.

The federal prosecutor at the time, Amy L. Kurland, who is now Philadelphia inspector general, employed a rarely used chemical-weapons law that implements provisions of an international treaty.

Goldman argued that the 10th Amendment prohibited Congress from using a treaty as the basis to regulate Bond's conduct. He argued that hers was a crime of passion, better suited to charges under a Pennsylvania law designed for acts of personal revenge rather than a federal law created to address terrorism.

Under an unusual plea bargain, Bond pleaded guilty but retained the right to challenge the constitutionality of the federal law on appeal. She was sentenced to six years in prison.

Her initial appeal triggered the first unexpected move by the courts. Although prosecutors did not challenge Bond's legal standing to raise the issue, the Third Circuit judges asked lawyers for both sides to consider it.

Prosecutors took the hint and argued that only states could bring a challenge because the 10th Amendment involves states', not individuals', rights. The Third Circuit ruled for the government.

The next twist came when Bond appealed to the Supreme Court. The federal government switched positions, agreeing that she did have the right to bring a 10th Amendment challenge.

In response, the Supreme Court took the rare step of appointing a special lawyer to defend the lower-court decision. Some observers saw that as a signal that the justices were prepared to use the case to make a sweeping ruling on federalism and states' rights, or on treaties.

In his opinion Thursday, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote at length about the federalism dynamic between the national and state governments - and its role vis-a-vis liberty - but did not appear to offer any sweeping precedents.

"Bond seeks to vindicate her own constitutional interests," Kennedy wrote. "Her rights in this regard do not belong to the state. . . . States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert A. Zauzmer, chief of appeals in Philadelphia, said Thursday that he had not yet read the court's decision, but that he expected to argue that the chemical-weapons law was constitutional and was fairly applied.

If the case returns to the Supreme Court, Bond might attend.

The Third Circuit is likely to hear her case by fall, and a decision is possible by year's end. A second appeal to the Supreme Court would likely be made by fall 2012, about the earliest point at which Bond could expect to be released from prison.