Who's The Cutest Courtroom Dog? You Are!

[Formaldehyde]

Courtroom dogs are becoming more and more prevalent in the US. Witness this recent case in NY:

By Helping a Girl Testify at a Rape Trial, a Dog Ignites a Legal Debate

POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. — Rosie, the first judicially approved courtroom dog in New York, was in the witness box here nuzzling a 15-year-old girl who was testifying that her father had raped and impregnated her. Rosie sat by the teenager’s feet. At particularly bad moments, she leaned in.

When the trial ended in June with the father’s conviction, the teenager “was most grateful to Rosie above all,” said David A. Crenshaw, a psychologist who works with the teenager.

“She just kept hugging Rosie,” he continued.

Now an appeal planned by the defense lawyers is placing Rosie at the heart of a legal debate that will test whether there will be more Rosies in courtrooms in New York and, possibly, other states.

Rosie is a golden retriever therapy dog who specializes in comforting people when they are under stress. Both prosecutors and defense lawyers have described her as adorable, though she has been known to slobber.

Prosecutors here noted that she is also in the vanguard of a growing trial trend: in Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana and some other states in the last few years, courts have allowed such trained dogs to offer children and other vulnerable witnesses nuzzling solace in front of juries.

The new role for dogs as testimony enablers can, however, raise thorny legal questions. Defense lawyers argue that the dogs may unfairly sway jurors with their cuteness and the natural empathy they attract, whether a witness is telling the truth or not, and some prosecutors insist that the courtroom dogs can be a crucial comfort to those enduring the ordeal of testifying, especially children.

The new witness-stand role for dogs in several states began in 2003, when the prosecution won permission for a dog named Jeeter with a beige button nose to help in a sexual assault case in Seattle. “Sometimes the dog means the difference between a conviction and an acquittal,” said Ellen O’Neill-Stephens, a prosecutor there who has become a campaigner for the dog-in-court cause.

At least once when the teenager hesitated in Judge Greller’s courtroom, the dog rose and seemed to push the girl gently with her nose. Mr. Tohom was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life.

His lawyers, David S. Martin and Steven W. Levine of the public defender’s office, have raised a series of objections that they say seems likely to land the case in New York’s highest court. They argue that as a therapy dog, Rosie responds to people under stress by comforting them, whether the stress comes from confronting a guilty defendant or lying under oath.

But they say jurors are likely to conclude that the dog is helping victims expose the truth. “Every time she stroked the dog,” Mr. Martin said in an interview, “it sent an unconscious message to the jury that she was under stress because she was telling the truth.”

“There was no way for me to cross-examine the dog,” Mr. Martin added.

In written arguments, the defense lawyers claimed it was “prosecutorial misconduct” for the Dutchess County assistant district attorney handling the rape case, Kristine Hawlk, to arrange for Rosie to be taken into the courtroom. Cute as the dog was, the defense said, Rosie’s presence “infected the trial with such unfairness” that it constituted a violation of their client’s constitutional rights.

Ms. Hawlk declined to discuss Rosie. In written arguments, she said that all Rosie did was help a victim suffering from serious emotional distress, and she called the defense claims “frivolous accusations.”

The defense lawyers acknowledged the risk of appearing antidog. Rosie, they wrote, “is a lovely creature and by all standards a ‘good dog,’ ” and, they added, the defendant “wishes her only the best.”

As the lawyers prepare their appeal, Rosie has been busy. She spent much of her time in recent weeks with two girls, ages 5 and 11, who were getting ready to testify against the man accused of murder in the stabbing of their mother.

Is this "infecting the trial with such unfairness" that it can very well sway a jury? Is there really any legitimate reason for even children to have a cute animal by their side as they testify? Or are those just "frivolous accusations"?

Will closing arguments now have to include comments of how the courtroom dog “is a lovely creature and by all standards a ‘good dog,’ ”,and that the defendant “wishes her only the best” so as not to appear "antidog"?

Is this going to usher in a battle of the pets? Should defendants and their own witnesses be allowed to counter with their own selection of reassuring pets?

Is this the start of a burgeoning new industry for pet breeders and animal handlers?

Will even the prosecutors soon start showing up with a pitbull or bulldog by their side to show they are tough on crime? Or are their interests better served by deploying a cute maltese puppy instead of a yapping chihuahua?

 

[SuperJay]

Interesting story. I think it's hard to see how this dog is unfairly swaying the verdict one way or the other (except by helping people testify), but I'm not surprised it's raising objections.

I'd be curious to hear Jolly's and Illram's thoughts on this.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I can definitely see how this could sway the odd verdict and since by far the primary role of the courtroom is to result in justice , I say no dogs . I'm a massive dog lover and I can respect how they can reduce stress in those testifying , but this really doesn't rank compared to the importance of just outcomes.

Now maybe if they could get big beautiful German Shepherds on the legal team and in the judiciary that would be an improvement

 

[warpus]

Would you be allowed to give testimony holding 2 cute kittens in your lap?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Would you be allowed to give testimony holding 2 cute kittens in your lap?

Good luck with my aforementioned all improved system

 

[Dreadnought]

“There was no way for me to cross-examine the dog,” Mr. Martin added.

My thoughts exactly as to why this shouldn't be implemented.

 

[Ajidica]

I can see it being used to help children or minors testify on very sensitive issues, but any use should be limited at best and steps should be taken so as not to be overy prejudicial.

 

[GoodGame]

Would you be allowed to give testimony holding 2 cute kittens in your lap?

LOL

I guess it's ok as long as it doesn't induce anyone to believe you're extra extra truthful. If it's a a security blanket for the witness, I don't see a reason for not allowing it, especially since it might make court more time efficient.

 

[Red Door]

I mean, if you can have juries disregard statements by witnesses, can't you have them disregard the fact there is a dog sitting next to someone?

Or have I been watching too much TV?


I feel like a dog could be the same as a young person holding a blanket to comfort them...or sucking their thumb, just a comfort tool and nothing else.

 

[Perfection]

Could not this testimony be received in private?

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Being "anti-dog" is something that can hurt you politically. Strange country I live in.

 

[illram]

This is totally bizarre and I am not sure how I feel about it.

On the one hand, yes, a jury could definitely be swayed by a dog and the witnesses interaction with the dog. Instructing them to ignore the dog is as useless as instructing them to ignore anything else that they hear. As they say, you can't get ink out of a glass of milk.

On the other hand, re-living a traumatizing experience on the stand (if someone is in fact telling the truth) is tough and this is a...creative way of helping a witness cope with the stress. From a defense perspective, my own personal bias when it comes to criminal law, I would tend to agree a little more with the argument that the jury is getting a signal that the dog implies the person is truthfully testifying, since the presence of the dog implies that the witness has true facts in their head that they cannot release without the aid of this comforting, sweet little dog. I mean all told it's a pretty powerful tool and if the prosecutor is saying that's the difference between an acquittal and a conviction, is it really just the testimony or is something else going on there?

I would perhaps suggest therapy with the dog and the witness and the prosecutor in private beforehand to prepare the witness and then once ready, put her on the stand without the dog.

I would also want to know exactly how the jury is instructed regarding the dog's presence. If they are told, for example, that the dog is a therapy dog designed to help people cope with traumatic experiences then yeah, that's a huge problem and you already have them convinced the witness is telling the truth before they say anything.

Could not this testimony be received in private?

I think sometimes they do something like this for young child witnesses in CA, not entirely sure.

However as a general matter, the jurors need to be able to see the witness live, if at all possible. I suppose you could have a video of her testimony with the dog out of the picture, with both sides getting their shot on camera and a judge handling objections, but part of effective cross examination is having the lawyer in front of the jury leading the witness with the questioning and that performance would not be as effective on video, perhaps. Plus, you want the witness there in front of that box facing 12 live faces, knowing that those people are listening and watching. If this became possible then you would probably see every single prosecutor doing this with every single difficult witness and the point of a jury trial would go out the window.

 

[SuperJay]

I I'm a massive dog lover and I can respect how they can reduce stress in those testifying , but this really doesn't rank compared to the importance of just outcomes.

But that's the crux of it right there - including a dog isn't just an accessory to help someone feel better, it's a tool that can enable the alleged victim to testify about an emotional trauma; you might not have that testimony if not for that dog. So a "just outcome" is just as likely - perhaps moreso - to result from including a dog than from excluding one.

Frankly, I think it's easier for a jury to disregard a dog than it is for the rape victim to just get over it and provide clear, effective testimony.

Edited to add:

I would also want to know exactly how the jury is instructed regarding the dog's presence. If they are told, for example, that the dog is a therapy dog designed to help people cope with traumatic experiences then yeah, that's a huge problem and you already have them convinced the witness is telling the truth before they say anything.

Hmm, that's a very good point. Just including the dog does imply that this person has had a traumatic experience, regardless of the content of their testimony.

 

[LucyDuke]

I don't buy that a victim choking up and breaking down is less likely than a dog to sway jurors.

DOGS FOR EVERYONE

 

[Syterion]

For children and rape victims, I don't see why private testimony can't be allowed with dogs. Illram's idea is good. Practice with a dog and the prosecutor. They'll undoubtedly be practicing their testimony anyway, why not practice emotionally being able to confront the issue? Although as Lucy says, breaking down on stand is powerful too, so you may want first reaction to be live.

 

[Tristan_C]

Wow, training dogs to comfort people who are under stress in the courtroom. I think this ranks up there with boiling cow urine to make purple dye in terms of the phrase, "People think of everything."

 

[Nobody]

Can the defence put a big angry pitbull by her as well?

 

[Perfection]

I don't buy that a victim choking up and breaking down is less likely than a dog to sway jurors.

DOGS FOR EVERYONE

Maybe the defendant should get a dog too.

 

[LucyDuke]

Yeah, that's what I mean. Anyone that wants a dog gets a dog.

 

[Narz]

I wish I could take a dog to the courtroom tomorrow to keep me company while I deal with a BS traffic ticket.