I'm a little late to this issue.
While I'm not an attorney and it's been a long time since I slept at a Holiday Inn, I do have a couple of quick observations ...
Inyati ... you would probably do yourself a great amount of help if you'd reference local ordinances in your defense. Specifically, the sections on "Animal on Animal Aggression" (re: Blue texting photos of his nuts to your heifer) and the section on "Claims Relating to the Loss of Property Owned by Rancher Due to Lackadaisical and Irresponsible Governance of Dog". Wait, that second section might do more harm to your case than good... In any event, if she is a virgin heifer (i.e., never been bull exposed), your case is stronger than if she has been. If she's been AI'd, it's more of a grey area and the jury will need to consider all the facts.
BCG ... also in the local codes that would be relevant to Blue's case, there are many references to the fact that if a family member living with another family member 'steals' something, but that 'stolen something' never leaves the property they both live on, then the property isn't actually stolen. We already know the vice grips are accounted for. What about the other things? It would seem to me that the worst case scenario for Blue is that someone might believe he has the dexterity to open the cabinet, get the bourbon down, open the bottle and drink it without help from anyone else ... and in which case, he might have to pay 3x restitution (i.e., three new bottles of hooch for Inyati) ... but, even that seems a bit of a stretch.
Oh, and BCG ... this goes to trial, Blue will be declared innocent of all charges.
Why?
He's required to have a jury of his peers. I cannot imagine a jury of intact male dogs would vote him guilty. He'll skate.