Print view Web view

Appellate Issues

Although for several years judges have permitted courthouse dogs to be present during a trial to decrease stress experienced by witnesses, defense attorneys have not raised this issue on appeal until 2011.

Defense Objections to the Use of a Courthouse Dog During a Trial

• The dog will distract the jury.
• The child will be distracted by the dog.
• If the child has a dog within reach, the child will take the oath less seriously
• The dog detracts from the decorum of the courtroom.
• Jurors that like dogs will like the witness more than the defendant.
• The State orchestrated the presence of the dog in order to engender sympathy for the complainant.
• If the dog physically responds to a witness exhibiting signs of stress, the jury cannot tell if the dog is responding to stress produced by lying or stress produced by recounting a traumatic experience.
• I can’t cross-exam the dog.
• The dog is comforting the witness because the defendant committed the crime against the witness.
• Child witnesses who are nervous are often allowed to cuddle a favorite toy or blanket, , "but to provide them with a special prize - a new dog - and praise them each time they come and testify is profoundly troubling and can undermine the truth."
• The defendant is allergic to dogs.
• The presence of the dog bolsters the credibility of the witness.

Pending Appeals
Appeals are pending in various states at this time. Below is documentation regarding the status of appeals in Dutchess County, New York and King County, Washington.

New York - Duchess County
People v Victor Tohom

• Man's best friend in court, Brian Williams, NBC Nightly News, August 2011.

• By helping a girl testify at a rape trial, a dog ignites a legal debate, William Glaberson, New York Times, August 2011.

• Dog in New York case takes the witness stand, Christina Ng, ABC News, June 2011.

• Court dogs offer calm to traumatized witnesses, George Walsh, AP, June 2011.

• Dog's presence calms girl testifying about sex assault, AP, New York Law Journal, June 2011.

• Judge Greller's findings of fact and conclusions of law allowing a dog to accompany a witness

Washington - King County
State v Timothy Dye

• ABC news story giving facts of case
• Appellant brief
• Response to appellant's brief
• Appellant's reply brief

Please note:

Courthouse Dogs do not fit the definition of a service dog under the American Disability Act.
See ADA Service Animals 2010.

Service animals are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Examples of such work or tasks include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack, or performing other duties. Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person’s disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.

In contrast, courthouse dogs assist many people in the criminal justice system by providing a calming presence. Assistance Dogs International, Inc. (ADI) a coalition of not for profit organizations that train and place service dogs such as Canine Companions for Independence, considers courthouse dogs as a type of facility dog.  Their minimum training and behavior standards are described in these links.

ADI Facility Dog Standards

Facility Dogs - Canine Companions for Independence