“Comfort Dogs” in court
posted at 4:05 pm on August 10, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
This story has actually been going on for some time, spreading out to ten states across the nation, the latest being New York. It deals with a program where gentle guide dogs are provided to certain witnesses in court – specifically young assault victims who are too emotionally traumatized to provide testimony – so that they may be comforted by them while on the witness stand.
A 15-year-old girl had special help when she took the witness stand Monday at the trial for the man accused of sexually assaulting her for four years.
Rose, an 11-year-old golden retriever whose regular job is helping provide therapy in schools for troubled children, was there at her side, helping to calm a child who experts said is otherwise incapable of talking about her traumatic ordeal.
It’s an unprecedented arrangement in New York and now gaining acceptance elsewhere. Pioneered by a Seattle prosecutor in 2003, courthouse dogs are participating in trials in at least 10 states, often over the objections of defense lawyers who worry that the dogs generate extra sympathy for victims and witnesses.
During a little more than an hour on the stand, Rose was mostly invisible Monday. When the girl was asked to point out the man who is charged with raping her for four years starting at the age of 10, the dog poked her muzzle up and the girl stroked it. When she was asked to go into graphic detail about the rapes, she looked down and patted the dog.
Right off the bat, in case it could imply that I’m biased, most regular readers know that I’m a dog guy. I’ve always had dogs and I love them. I also have pretty much zero tolerance for anyone who abuses children. So I’m not sure exactly why this would ever be considered controversial, but at least according to one defense lawyer, it’s… not fair.
Before the girl took the stand, defense lawyer David Martin repeated his objections.
Martin, the public defender representing 36-year-old Victor Tohom, has objected not only to the potential that Rose would generate prejudicial empathy among jurors, but the fact there is no law in New York allowing the dog to accompany her. He said Greller’s decision allowing the dog will be part of any appeal if Tohom is convicted on the charge of predatory sexual assault against a child.
So… “prejudicial empathy” is it? I suppose a small child who has been repeatedly raped and abused over a period of years wasn’t already a fairly empathetic figure? But having a dog there to help calm her might… I’m sorry, what was it again.. “sway the jury?”
I suppose I’ll leave this one for the Hot Air faithful to debate and go hunt for a bottle of tequila. I’m about ready to punch somebody. If the dog helps the little girl, then send in the damn dog.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
In cases like this we shouldn’t have Goldens as comfort dogs, we should have pit bulls. Then after they’ve comforted the child we can turn them on the convicted to provide more comfort for the child.
nerdbert on August 10, 2011 at 4:11 PM
They allow young witnesses to sit in the laps of adults while they testify or testify behind a screen or via remote from another room. I’m not sure why a dog would be illegal. I would inform the jury that it is a companion dog, it is mostly out of sight, and they should not be distracted or put give the presence of the dog any weight. Woof! Woof!
Blake on August 10, 2011 at 4:12 PM
Let her have the damn dog. Let her have ice cream, cotton candy – whatever the hell she wants.
gophergirl on August 10, 2011 at 4:13 PM
No different than a teddy bear or anything else that would give someone comfort; it’s not as if the dog would be giving testimony or coaching the child on what to say.
If necessary have the dog out of sight behind the witness stand somehow.
Bishop on August 10, 2011 at 4:13 PM
I know my blood pressure always goes down when I see my Corgi staring at me and smiling. Really, she smiles. Dogs are wonderful companions and this just goes to show their positive benefits on people is endless. Maybe that defense lawyer should get one so he won’t be such a jerk.
Meric1837 on August 10, 2011 at 4:13 PM
I say let them bring the dog in, and at the same time, give Defense Attorney David Martin the Bird!
pilamaye on August 10, 2011 at 4:14 PM
I use to think dogs couldn’t smile but now I believe that they do. I also think they intentionally do things to make people laugh.
Back to the subject, in this case the wit was 15 y/o — not a 4 y/o. However, it does not say how old she was emotionally. Plus, it is difficult for an adult woman let alone a girl to discuss sex in front of a jury.
Blake on August 10, 2011 at 4:16 PM
Who let the dogs in?
.
Seriously, let her have the comfort the dog brings her…
OmahaConservative on August 10, 2011 at 4:17 PM
Except in cabs at the Minneapolis airport.
Tony737 on August 10, 2011 at 4:18 PM
if they accused wants to have a dog by his side if/when he testifies let him. end of controversy.
chasdal on August 10, 2011 at 4:19 PM
Seeing eye dogs are allowed in court, I don’t see much difference.
Vashta.Nerada on August 10, 2011 at 4:19 PM
You’re damn right…
stacman on August 10, 2011 at 4:19 PM
Seven Percent Solution on August 10, 2011 at 4:20 PM
I admire the cut of your jib, sir.
Vashta.Nerada on August 10, 2011 at 4:21 PM
“prejudicial empathy”
Just imagine the Duke Lacrosse girl, or the DSK woman doing this.
Disallow.
faraway on August 10, 2011 at 4:21 PM
Obama team planning on losing Ohio in 2012
KeepOhioRed on August 10, 2011 at 4:21 PM
I can see one aspect here that could potentially qualify for a rational objection. The dog is used to to provide comfort to a victim of trauma and abuse. If the court allows the animal to be present then it could appear that the court has already decided that the witness is legitimately a victim. In this particular case I don’t doubt that it is the truth, however as a general principle I see tremendous potential for abuse. Allowing a comfort animal to be present essentially says that the court already deems the witness to have been victimized, and that will undeniably taint the jury.
In an era where courts are as much about theatrics as they are about facts, this is dangerous ground to tread.
jollycynic on August 10, 2011 at 4:21 PM
… is probably a cat lovin’ liberal!
Tony737 on August 10, 2011 at 4:22 PM
So according to this guy, that which is not explicitly permitted is implicitly prohibited? For that alone he should be shot.
Even without that, I’m totally OK with the dog. Dogs rule.
flipflop on August 10, 2011 at 4:22 PM
Well the last thing we want to do is hurt the feelings of a child rapist. /sarc
Mangy Scot on August 10, 2011 at 4:22 PM
You have to remember that our system assumes that the defendant is innocent. So the legal issue is whether the presence of the dog will create a response in a jury that assumes the defendant is liable, which is why defendants are usually allowed to be dressed in formal clothes even if the defendant is in jail. In others words, if the defendant were actually innocent, would the presence of the dog increase the likelihood that the defendant would be wrongfully convicted…
One other thing: our system is more concerned about protecting an innocent person from conviction than making a victim comfortable; you may disagree, but that is our system…
So, it is an important issue…
RedSoxNation on August 10, 2011 at 4:25 PM
I wonder if people in court might be less likely to lie if a dog is present?
This is just my opinion, but I think there’s something about the presence of a friendly animal, or at least a non-hostile one, that somehow gets us to drop some of our defense mechanisms.
Mary in LA on August 10, 2011 at 4:25 PM
And another thing:
Is there any law preventing the dog from accompanying her?
Mangy Scot on August 10, 2011 at 4:26 PM
He’ll probably lose FL too…
OmahaConservative on August 10, 2011 at 4:27 PM
I got a complaint letter from a customer b1tchin’ about having to sit next to a customer with a comfort dog. They never said anything to me on the plane, I would’ve told HIM, not the lady with the dog, to go sit somewhere else.
Tony737 on August 10, 2011 at 4:27 PM
I don’t get it? If the dog wasn’t there, it means she wasn’t raped repeatedly for 4 years? The jury is going to be swayed by the presences of the dog but not her testimony?
I think the defense lawyer is objecting to the victims ability to articulate the abuse she suffered. If she was deaf, would there be a hand sign interpreter to translate for her in court? Would that translator create empathy among the jury?
Dr Evil on August 10, 2011 at 4:28 PM
Corgis make me smile too. Plus the fact that they walk like slinkies. Back end has no clue what the front is doing.
I’m all for the comfort dog idea!
katy the mean old lady on August 10, 2011 at 4:30 PM
Good for you…
OmahaConservative on August 10, 2011 at 4:31 PM
1) I’m a cat person, but even I have to say that a Golden Retriever makes everything better.
2) Some groups of people are innocent victims of stereotypes. Defense lawyers are active participants.
Merovign on August 10, 2011 at 4:33 PM
The defense lawyer is scum. He, along with statists, believe that unless the government specifIcally allows something then it can be forbidden. In a just society the opposite is the only sane course.
GardenGnome on August 10, 2011 at 4:33 PM
Let her have the dog in court, especially if it’s a female dog cuz’ justice can be a bitch.
GreenBlade on August 10, 2011 at 4:40 PM
I don’t have an issue with the victim having a “comfort dog”, just not on the witness stand. Maybe in an antechamber? If the victim get’s an empathy companion then the accused should get one also, maybe a chaplain, priest or rabbi? Justice is best served when tried on the facts, without the need to allow emotional accessories to “game the system”.
Sailfish on August 10, 2011 at 4:42 PM
When I become Benevolent Dictator, you will be my Minister of Justice.
TugboatPhil on August 10, 2011 at 4:42 PM
A dog, cat, bird, or goldfish that helps a child deal with looking someone who abused them in court should be allowed. It is a child for crying out loud, not an adult who most times can sorta deal with these things. My vote is let whatever critter makes the abused feel better testifying, getter done!
L
letget on August 10, 2011 at 4:46 PM
This case was discussed earlier this week on the Volokh website.
aunursa on August 10, 2011 at 4:47 PM
I absolutely agree there should be dogs in court. As soon as a guilty verdict is handed down for one of these child molesting monsters, attacks dogs should be released on them.
ButterflyDragon on August 10, 2011 at 4:49 PM
The problem with the dog at the witness stand is that it implies to the jury that everything the witness is saying is true and the witness suffered real trauma.
I hate to ever agree with criminal defense attorneys, particularly those defending scum who violate children, but I have to agree here that this is prejudicial to their client’s right to a fair trial.
By allowing the dog, the judge has issued a ruling that implies to the jury that the witness’s story is credible and therefore the witness needs the dog to get through her testimony.
Monkeytoe on August 10, 2011 at 4:55 PM
As a follow-up to my previous comment, a way around my objection may be to allow the dog for all witnesses in a case, so that it does not imply credibility for any specific witness. Of course, this would be defeated if everyone knew the real purpose was to allow the purported victim to have the dog. So not sure this would work in practice.
Monkeytoe on August 10, 2011 at 4:56 PM
Large animals in the courtroom…
What could possibly go wrong?
And I say this as a staunch animal lover with several pets who I love dearly (more than most people).
What happens when Bubba the crack dealer wants to bring his 200 lb bloodthirsty hound to court because it “comforts” him?
Just sayin’.
UltimateBob on August 10, 2011 at 4:58 PM
I dont have a problem with the dog used in this context, it should have no impact on the jury at all… I dont see how it would
However I do have a problem with the people saying that the dog should be instantly used to attack the person that has been convicted of a crime. If anything the last few decades of bad bad bad verdicts and wrongful convictions tell us anything is that our “legal” system is far far far far far far far far far far far from perfect and a single “conviction” does not mean a person is truly guilty of anything, only that the government has spun a better story than the defendant.
This is even more true for sex crimes where I can show you many cases where a person of authority has been accused (some even convicted) of sexual misconduct or abuse by underage minors because the minor was punished or did not get their way or some other non-sexual conflict with the accused. Discussions like this one, prove that when accused of said crime you are in fact guilty until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be innocent.
Dont confuse that with being soft, if it 100% forensically proven, I support capital punishment for all sex crimes, if there is no doubt with a proven link beyond eyewitness testimony which is about as reliable as an Obama statement
the_ancient on August 10, 2011 at 5:01 PM
Playing devil’s advocate here, so don’t get your hackles up, but are not ‘criminal defendants’ alleged to be “innocent until proven guilty”? The girl should have access to just about anything that might comfort her and aid her to get through what she must be going through, but what of the defendant? Does the accused get a ‘comfort dog’ too?
Criminal jury trial convictions are a 100% unanimous affair. I can most definitely see jurors automatically getting their heart strings tugged while they watch a witness/victim on the stand caressing a cute doggy while on the stand. The antithesis would be automatic disdain for the accused defendant be they truly guilty or truly innocent. Jurors get instructions from the trial judge that tells them they cannot use their emotions in their deliberations, but everyone knows that is never the case.
Comfort dogs are a fantastic tool for assuaging the nervousness and fear of people, especially in children, but I think that in all fairness in a civilized and just society they should remain out of the courtroom and in adjoining antechambers and rooms or offices where they could have their time together away from the jurors and jurists who would decide the fate of the person seated at the defendant table who are most definitely quite nervous and fearful themselves… and quite possibly innocent of the crime(s) of which they are the accused.
FlatFoot on August 10, 2011 at 5:02 PM
Just make sure the dog has “gone walkies” before the testimony. A smelly canine accident would be a dog-gone shame for the victim…
Definitely, a gentle Golden will win sympathy for anyone. People usually ignore me, but I’m really popular when walking my Buddy.
Steve Z on August 10, 2011 at 5:06 PM
BRAVO Doggie! Give that Dog a BACA patch!!!!
(B.iker’s A.gainst C.hild A.buse that is)
Katfish on August 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM
This is an awful lot better than having a human “counsellor” sitting there giving the kid pointers on what to say and how to say it.
The right to “face your accuser” means the unimpeded right to cross-examine and NOT the right to intimidate. Dogs help give a feeling of security but, unlike many of the other methods of insulating witnesses, dogs can’t possibly influence the testimony itself.
The Mendendez brothers were originally acquitted, at least in part, because they wore retarded-looking fuzzy sweaters on the stand. If the jury can’t see past that, then don’t blame the damned sheep.
logis on August 10, 2011 at 5:14 PM
I’m pretty sure there is no law in New York that says a witness has to wear a blue blouse or shirt, but if they want to, I’m sure they could.
RUReadingthis on August 10, 2011 at 5:16 PM
I want the defendant as nervous as the abused child. Authorize Pit bulls to be comfort dogs. Or German Shepards. Defense objects, let the dog go sit at their table. Maybe the jury will be sympathetic to them then.
Of course the rights of the wrongly accused must be protected but in the case of minors sorry my actions go to them. It is already traumatic having to be in a courtroom with all those grownups and that guy in a black robe to start with, and that doesn’t matter whether it is a custody battle, adoption, or crimminal case.
Just A Grunt on August 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM
When I was interning at a law firm in California while going to law school, I wrote an extensive lengthy legal memorandum on service animals and comfort animals for a client who was involved in a dispute with a certain organization who refused to let her comfort animals on the premises.
That memorandum that I wrote helped us win the case in my client’s favor.
I can see both sides of this issue of why a comfort dog would be controversial in letting traumatized people testify, but I think the law is against the defendant who doesn’t want kids to testify with comfort animals.
Conservative Samizdat on August 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM
Zeus! Apollo!
rmel80 on August 10, 2011 at 5:36 PM
I agree. The presence of a dog is prejudicial, as well as extremely annoying to those of us who don’t like dogs.
If allowed at all, the animal should be completely out of sight…and muzzled.
landlines on August 10, 2011 at 5:39 PM
I’m inclined to give the defense attorney a break here. He’s a public defender, stuck with a child-raping scumbag of a client. Given the age of the victim and the length of the abuse, there is little likelihood of mistaken identity. The attorney probably has very little to work with in terms of mounting a defense to the charges. In making the argument about the dog, he’s just doing his job (lawyers are required to zealously represent their clients to the best of their ability).
Even so, if I were the judge, I’d let the girl have the dog during testimony. A jury instruction should be sufficient to cure any potential prejudice to the defendant.
AZCoyote on August 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM
Higgins!
Monkeytoe on August 10, 2011 at 5:52 PM
You mean…. allegedly repeatedly raped and abused over a period of years.
Sorry, I would be against having a dog there.
All of this “it’s just too traumatic for the child to testify against that guilty horrible person out there”…… so we have to bend rules, twist procedures and make extreme accommodations for that poor innocent witness …. you see where this is heading? The court is already making judgements about who is really guilty and who is innocent before a verdict has been reached.
JellyToast on August 10, 2011 at 5:57 PM
I seriously doubt it. But then, being a litigator, I have almost no faith in juries.
The problem is that the dog lends instant credibility to the witness. Both in terms of validating that the witness truly was a victim and therefore needs a comfort dog and in terms of transference, people will like the cute dog and therefore transfer that to the witness.
I see this as a due process issue. It is stacking the deck against the defendant. And don’t get me wrong, if someone is guilty of abusing a child, I want to see them hang. But, I think we have to be careful in taking away to many defendant rights.
Particularly in child abuse trials. We have seen a lot of studies done showing that children are easily manipulated into false accusations. Remember that mother/son child care center about 20 years ago where the kids swore there were underground tunnels where tehy where sexually assaulted? They dug all around that place and found nothing adn those people were eventually found not guilty, but not before their reputations were ruined and tehy were bankrupted. All b/c some social workers used dolls and other means to get teh kids to make claims taht were not true.
It’s hard, because we always want to believe a child. And when it is true, we want to really hammer the villians. But we can’t let our legal system get corrupted in the meantime.
Monkeytoe on August 10, 2011 at 5:58 PM
Its a Defense attorney, the real reason is that it helps a witness testify against the attorney’s client, all else is rationalization.
LarryD on August 10, 2011 at 6:08 PM
I suppose if that is a problem then the Judge should control the clothing each side wears? Everyone who testifies wears clothing meant to convey a message to the jury. It sounds like an excuse to prepare of an appeal to me. If it really is a big problem put her behind a screen. She’d probably feel even better if she didn’t have to stare at the lawyers.
Dawnsblood on August 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM
Yall naysayers please consider: What could possibly be more traumatic to a child than the original abuse?(alleged if you will)………. Walking into an unfamiliar room full of strangers and having to repeat IN DETAIL what happened as the only means of seeking justice.
I feel my BACA Brother Ace explains it pretty well (surely yall can spare 7 minutes):
Face of an Angel
Katfish on August 10, 2011 at 6:18 PM
Exceptions have always been made for kids in court and it is entirely up to the judge so long as it is not prohibited. 15 is the threshold age in most States though.
pat on August 10, 2011 at 6:22 PM
Not having a dog (the science is settled on heart rate), for an alleged crime victim, unfairly disadvantages the State for the prosecution is the only party concerned with the future civic participation of the witness.
As for any “prejudicial empathy” to “sway the jury”, a comfort dog is no more a negation of a defendant right any more so than having a witnesses obligated to pay for said justice, regardless of outcome, through force of tax is a loss of victim rights or by pointing out to the jury what compassion victims offer in ultimately paying for defendant incarceration or treatment.
FeFe on August 10, 2011 at 6:28 PM
Pass the bottle my way. Damn I hate trial lawyers.
simkeith on August 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM
Jazz, as a defense attorney once told me; “When the facts are in your clients favor, pound the facts. When they’re not – BAFFLE THE JURY WITH BULLSHIT.”
Like it or not, it works. And you know the list of impossible ‘jury verdicts’ that have come out because of bullshit baffled jurors.
GarandFan on August 10, 2011 at 7:03 PM
Extra sympathy from whom? A jury? Isn’t a jury supposed to deliberate based on the FACTS of the case? Isn’t this exactly how Casey Anthony walked? There was plenty of sympathy to go around for Caylee Anthony, yet it apparently wasn’t a contributing factor to the outcome. Therefore, there shouldn’t be a problem with this.
RMCS_USN on August 10, 2011 at 7:13 PM
Another pix of Rosie.
Legally, I believe that the defense may have a legitimate argument. They can keep the dog but make his presence less obtrusive and with a caution by the judge which was not done here.
Blake on August 10, 2011 at 7:18 PM
A therapist or other medical practitioner had to decide that the girl needed this type of assistance. So is having a dog sitting next to an “alleged victim” really that different from an “alleged victim” in a wheelchair or wearing a neck brace and casts? It seems to me that the courts generally understand that if the “alleged victim” has a medical need then any argument about “prejudicial empathy” is out of bounds.
Now if someone wants to bring a dog into court without any therapeutic value, then obviously that is a totally different situation.
But, can someone tell me, isn’t this essentially covered by the ADAAA? I am assuming the dog qualifies as a trained assistance animal. If so, it doesn’t matter that the state hasn’t got any laws about the matter. The Federal law says assistance animals are not pets and cannot be barred.
rsb1 on August 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM
Yes, I think a dog could be prejudicial because I am personally a sap for dogs. But, even if a jury is swayed, the bottomline there is a ton of evidence against this guy. So, even if having the dog in the courtroom is error, it is harmless error.
Blake on August 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM
There is a simple remedy, don’t put the child on the stand in the court room, have the child testify via a monitor from another room. The jury can see the child’s testimony, the child isn’t re traumatized — that would be the civilized thing to do. The defendant is facing their accuser, the child is on the monitor the defense attorney can ask the child questions, the jury can listen to the child’s answers. Plus there is a visual record to refer to later for any appeals.
Dr Evil on August 10, 2011 at 7:23 PM
I love golden retrievers. I share my life with three right now and have shared it with six over all. They are the most loving a reassuring breed there is. Their face, their eyes, maybe I am projecting, but I feel they feel for us.
That being said, this is not even a close call. Not even close. Of course the dog is objectionable and overly prejudicial to the accused. The accused. The accused. Your rationale for allowing the dog presupposes a victim, thus presupposes a crime, thus presupposes guilt. That is not how the system is suppose to work. Being wrongly accused of a heinous crime can also be very traumatizing. Are we going allow the defendant to bring in their golden retrievers with their pitiful eyes to comfort them during trials? I didn’t think so…
tommylotto on August 10, 2011 at 8:15 PM
I echo your love of dogs and kids but I also love an impartial justice system which strives to reach a result which is fair and honest. Child testimony is crucial in these cases but it has also been shown to be problematic and just as unreliable as any other testimony. Sounds like an awful case.
lexhamfox on August 10, 2011 at 11:54 PM
The dog is provided by the court. It is not the defendant’s or the prosecutor’s dog.
That being said, the testimony of a little girl who has been or claims to have been raped would get the Pope hung (apparently not if it’s a little boy, though). Of course this sick defense lawyer wants it thrown out.
Plain fact of the matter is that if the defense has a beef, it’s because they freaking suck. A competent defense lawyer would have known before hand and requested a “comfort dog” for his client. The fact that he didn’t speaks to his non-belief in his client’s case. You think Casey Anthony’s little toe-lickers wouldn’t have requested one if the prosecution had? Of course they would have.
Quite frankly, if we can allow people to testify remotely, there is nothing that can be ginned up about this. That girl was terrified she would screw up and he would get off – and then where would she be? Abusers always seek to hide their abuse, duh. Any other evidence would likely have been circumstantial.
flashoverride on August 11, 2011 at 1:17 AM
Scummy comment. Pit bulls are no more human aggressive than any other breed. It takes human garbage like Michael Vick or similar ghetto/trailer trash who dump and/or chain them in backyards then ignore them for most of their lives to F them up sufficiently to render them dangerous. They don’t even train well for “attack” duties: There’s a number of reasons GSD’s and Dobermans get tapped for that kind of work.
Blacklake on August 11, 2011 at 2:03 AM
Again, the whole argument for allowing the dog is the pre-supposition of guilt, which is exactly why allowing the dog is prejudicial. Almost every comment on this thread in favor of allowing the dog is b/c the people assume the guy is guilty and therefore the girl needs the dog in order to testify so we can put the guy away. How do people not understand that the jury is going to think the exact same thing (“oh, they gave her a dog b/c she is so traumatized she couldn’t testify otherwise, obviously then the guy did it”).
As conservatives, aren’t we supposed to care about things like due process in criminal cases and the rule of law? Why even have a trial at all if it is going to traumatize the witness? Why not just lock the guy up w/o the headache and trauma of a trial? that would get rid of the need for the dog.
This one of those areas where it is extremely difficult to be on teh side of constitutional due process and fair trials b/c we want to protect the child and make sure the guy gets convicted. But that is also exactly why we need the constitutional protections, b/c our emotions are running so high.
Monkeytoe on August 11, 2011 at 8:18 AM
also, I’m pretty sure that every kind of criminal attempts to hide their crime and most prosecutions are entirely on circumstantial evidence. Let’s not forget, even dna is usually circumstantial – it is proof you were at some location at some point, it does not prove you were the person who stole something or killed someone. True direct evidence is a confession or an eye witness who saw you commit the crime. Almost everything else is circumstantial.
Monkeytoe on August 11, 2011 at 8:21 AM
I cannot believe that i have been reduced to arguing on the side of criminal defense attorneys. I don’t know what the world is coming to.
Monkeytoe on August 11, 2011 at 8:23 AM
I don’t really see the objection to this… especially since the witness doesn’t sit all exposed out in the open, but usually behind a short wall… which would mostly hide the dog from the jury.
dominigan on August 11, 2011 at 11:35 AM
Besides, in the case of underage witnesses, I thought they were allowed to use video testimony. How would it “influence the jury” if they video taped her testimony but kept the dog out of frame or behind a short wall?
dominigan on August 11, 2011 at 11:37 AM
Send in the damn dog!
Hopefully it will bite that scumbag’s dick off.
1IDVET on August 11, 2011 at 3:36 PM
Anyone who thinks that a dog will somehow sway a jury is, in my opinion, a moron.
If a dead 3 year old, and a month of lies and partying can be overcome to find Ms Anthony ‘Not Guilty’ there is no dog that will prevent a defense team of putting up a successful effort to defend their client.
StompUDead on August 11, 2011 at 4:10 PM