Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - Reports Onover Reach in Application of Chemical Weapons ACT

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - This is an interesting case. Carol Bond’s husband was infidel. Based on this fact, Bond could have filed a lawsuit against her husband and/or his mistress, including a divorce petition. There could have been a myriad causes of action – some colorable and others robust – for potential lawsuit by Bond. But, instead, Bond tried to get even with her husband’s mistress, Myrlinda Haynes. She tried to poison her husband’s mistress “by spreading chemicals on (among other things) her doorknob, causing only a minor burn that was easily treated with water.” Bond spread “two toxic chemicals on Haynes's car, mailbox, and door knob in hopes that Haynes would develop an uncomfortable rash.”

Here is where it gets interesting. Instead of treating this as a simple case of assault, the US filed a criminal complaint/lawsuit against Bond under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 229. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Lawsuit

It is not clear how this could have come about. The case finally wound up in the U.S. Supreme Court, because Carol Bond petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court, not only, accepted Bond’s Petition for a writ of certiorari, but held in favor of her in a unanimous 9-0 decision. (The U.S. Supreme Court receives over 7,000 writ petitions every year, and less than 200 of them are accepted for consideration and review by the Court).

The U.S Supreme Court simply held that the Chemical Weapons Act does not reach Bond’s simple assault. In its syllabus, the Court stated, “In sum, the global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard, or to treat a local assault with a chemical irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapon. There is no reason to suppose that Congressin implementing the Convention on Chemical Weapons-thought otherwise.”

Clearly, this is a case of gross over-reach by the government and what prompted such over-reach is not clear from the facts of the case.