web
counter
 

Well I Was There and I Saw What You Did: The Debate over Dogs in the Courtroom

By Cindy Davis | Posted Under Miscellaneous | Comments (29)



rosie therapy dog.jpg

Rape is something you never forget. You can grow older, move on, forgive, let go, try to block it out and pretend it never happened, but you can’t forget it. In the blink of an eye, something seemingly innocuous triggers your brain and next thing you know, you are transported back to that moment, desperately seeking escape from your own mind. Naively thinking nothing of following a superior to an empty classroom…wondering about the locked door…the continuous pleas of “Please, no” go unheeded and a heart pounds in terror. You can scrunch up your face and tightly close your eyes, try to think all the happy thoughts that might snap you back out of that place, but like a haunting, the ghost will never let go. Rape cannot be exorcised.

Sometimes the worst part of a rape is the aftermath. It is the one crime for which the victim will almost always feel somehow responsible, no matter what the circumstances. A sexual assault is an attack that leaves the victim feeling shame and fear, even in just trying to recount events-whether to the authorities or to a friend or relative. The victim is then subjected to an invasive medical examination that only exacerbates her violation. And often times, the victim’s truthfulness is questioned, or her “reputation” is called into an equation where it doesn’t belong (see The Accused); if someone in a powerful position is involved, the victim’s allegations are scrutinized all the more.

I remember sitting at the base of a tree crying by myself, shamed and afraid, not knowing what to do and certainly not thinking about reporting what had happened. A friend found me there and she comforted me until I could talk. When I finally found the words, she gently told me that if I didn’t go forward and tell the authorities what had happened, she would do it herself. She came with me and held my hand as the whirlwind began.

Just when I think the madness of this world can’t get any worse, the universe proves me wrong. I almost never watch the news anymore and when I read it, I skim the headlines, looking for something other than hatred, death and destruction. Every once in a while, something catches my eye and I click through, hoping to find something redemptive behind the boldfaced words; this time it was this New York Times article on the front page: By Helping a Girl Testify at a Rape Trial, a Dog Ignites a Legal Debate. Being the naive simpleton that I am, my first thought was, “What in the world could be debatable about a dog comforting a girl as she testifies?” Who could have a problem with that? Lawyers, of course.

The case in the article involved a young girl who had been raped by her father. At the trial, a court approved therapy dog named Rosie was allowed to sit by the girl as she testified. Rosie provided comfort to the traumatized girl and was said to be the equivalent of a teddy bear, allowed when young children must appear in court. This particular case ended in conviction, but the defense attorneys are appealing in an assertion that allowing dogs “may unfairly sway jurors with their cuteness and the natural empathy they attract, whether a witness is telling the truth or not…” Because of this case and other similar ones, the issue of allowing dogs at trial is expected to send the debate to the New York Supreme Court. As these (and other) defense lawyers are crying foul over the victims possibly getting some undue sympathy (WHAT?) or worrying over not being able to cross-examine the dog (seriously), prosecutors correctly state that testimony is not affected; the dogs merely ease a child’s stress and trauma.

Jurors are given instructions at the outset of a trial; if they are to be trusted to follow the rules of evidence and what is to be considered or not, they should be able to comprehend the idea of a dog comforting a traumatized child as she testifies. If, as an adult, I could barely manage to tell authorities what happened to me, I can hardly imagine how difficult and frightening it would be for a child to have to speak to an entire courtroom. To have to relive those events, with the perpetrator sitting right in front of her, would be traumatizing to an adult, never mind a child. Now, someone might say that I’m making the assumption of guilt here and I’ll say, yes I am. If a child is distressed to the point that a psychiatrist and a judge think she needs a dog to comfort her so she might be able to give testimony, then by Godtopus, I’m saying that fucker did it. Kids don’t fake trauma this way. They might drum up the drama with crocodile tears or lie about a brother hitting, but a kid isn’t going to put herself through a trial, with a dog nuzzling her hand to help her choke out the words, as a pretense. As with any courtroom rules, those that allow dogs should be specific and laid out for very particular types of cases. But to deny a child rape victim this small comfort on such ridiculous grounds, is as vile and wrong and as the crime that was perpetuated against her. It’s high time that rape victims are given as much legal consideration as is given their attackers.


You can thank your lucky stars that Cindy Davis is not a lawyer.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



5nal Destination 3D Review: Death: It Will Kill You. Every. F*cking. Time | Pajiba After Dark 8/14/11









Comments

Fuck those guys!

Have the defendant hold a bunny rabbit when he gives his testimony, to balance things, if they think it makes that much difference to the jury.

Posted by: MurderBot at August 14, 2011 3:30 PM

Right there with you on that one.

Posted by: Jami at August 14, 2011 3:38 PM

This made think of...

"What do you call a thousand lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean?" "A good start."

Posted by: Minto at August 14, 2011 3:55 PM

"If a child is distressed to the point that a psychiatrist and a judge think she needs a dog to comfort her so she might be able to give testimony, then by Godtopus, I’m saying that fucker did it. Kids don’t fake trauma this way."

So...aren't you kind of proving the lawyers' point by saying this? Essentially you're stating that the presence of a dog would lead you to evaluate the case differently. If you freely admit that it would have that effect on you, then why would you think it wouldn't have that effect on a jury?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving psychological support to traumatized children (as I am a psychologist). This just strikes me as odd.

Posted by: phaedawg at August 14, 2011 4:26 PM

This is an unfair argument. Either try and stick by the law and make sure no person has a disadvantage while being tried for one of the most heinous acts and therefore come across as defending rapists.
Or side with having the dog present, which, no matter how you like to believe juries can remain impartial, would absolutely have a sympathetic sway on them and therefore make our justice system a little less fair (albeit less fair for a detestable human being, but still).

Posted by: CWW at August 14, 2011 4:37 PM

So if a victim is blind and needs a seeing eye dog, the dog won't be allowed either?

Posted by: Four Eyes at August 14, 2011 4:53 PM

Just as we once thought that a child would never lie about being abused, the 1983 case of Alvin & Debbie McCuan and Scott & Brenda Kniffen showed us how horribly wrong we were. Through the use of manipulative and coercive interrogation methods police and prosecutors in Bakersfield were able to draw fabricated testimony from several children leading to convictions all around. Just as you said, "she needs a dog to comfort her so she might be able to give testimony, then by Godtopus, I’m saying that fucker did it. Kids don’t fake trauma this way" the jury assumed that kids just don't fake these types of accusations. BUT THEY DID.

Consider, for just a moment, the father, like the defendants from Bakersfield, is innocent. That, for whatever reason, this young girl is being manipulated and coerced to give testimony. That the mere thought of lying to strangers and telling them that her father has done the most awful things to her is what is truly traumatizing this child. That lying about her innocent father has "distressed [her] to the point that a psychiatrist and a judge think she needs a dog to comfort her so she might be able to give the [fabricated] testimony." The presence of the dog coupled with the idea kids don’t fake trauma this way may well influence the jury. The fact is that kids DO and HAVE faked trauma this way, not because they were evil, but because they were victims of overzealous prosecutors.

If the presence of the animal helps convict an innocent parent, tell me, how does that serve the child?

Posted by: BGHS1986 at August 14, 2011 5:01 PM

We have a statutory guaranty that a blind person requiring a seeing eye dog can bring their guide to places. It's called the Americans with Disabilities Act.

So no, they would be allowed to have their dog.

Posted by: CWW at August 14, 2011 5:02 PM

Thank you for this, as I read through the first few paragraphs I was shaking it hit so close to home.
And, in this case, the bastard was convicted. They objecting to the dog as part of appeal, so yeah, saying its an unfair argument is defending a rapist, a child rapist.

Posted by: HidinginWoodwork at August 14, 2011 5:09 PM

Simple solution: put the dog in the witness stand. The child can pet the dog without the jurors seeing it. Have the trainer standing next to it if necessary to keep the animal low enough so the jurors cannot see it. And if the state goes crazy enough, require the jurors be put in recess before removing the dog from the stand.

Unbelievable. We're now blaming the dog that comforts the victim and the victim for being too sympathetic.

Posted by: Robert at August 14, 2011 5:38 PM

Any child that has to testify in court should be allowed to have some measure of comfort. A blankie, teddy bear, whatever.

Fear of speaking is one of the most common phobias for adults. I would think that since adults find public speaking so hard, then a child in a room full of strangers watching them and asking hard questions would feel even more pressure.

Any therapy dog has been provided with extensive training and will behave well in just about any circumstance. Why single out a dog used for comfort measures? Just let it be known that the animal is a service dog, just as if it were a guide dog, and let it go.

Posted by: The Woo at August 14, 2011 6:20 PM

I really appreciated this, particularly your first two paragraphs. Defense lawyers are flooked up.

Posted by: Shhh at August 14, 2011 7:26 PM

The issue of jury prejudice is legitimate, if depressing: I mean, look at Rosie. She's fucking awesome. You know it, I know it. There's a reason golden retrievers are so widely used in American advertising, and it is their great physical attractiveness coupled with a reputation for steadfast loyalty and gentleness. We can tell ourselves not to anthropomorphize, but we do have emotional responses to companion animals that we don't have to, say, teddy bears or security blankets. Of course juries will have a visceral response to a person being comforted by a dog!

Suppose the defendant had a personal assistance dog for some reason and the victim did not, how much sympathy would he gain simply by stroking his dog's ears during the trial? I'd consider that prejudicial too. Wouldn't it be harder to convict a man of murder if you'd just seen him give his dog a belly rub?

Simple solution: dogs for both. Victim gets a therapy dog? Defendant gets a therapy dog. So what if he doesn't "need" it for the same reasons? It removes the possibility of unconscious influence and makes it far more likely that jurors can obey their instructions & focus on the facts of the case at hand rather than their emotional reactions to a weighted visual. A defendant is legally innocent until proven guilty: he might as well have a dog to pet until the trial is over. Dog won't give a shit. It's a win-win. The therapy dogs gets pets, work experience and a higher profile; our strangely anti-dog society gets more accustomed to sharing its public space with canines; victims get comfort, defendants get a fair shake.

Posted by: Salieri2 at August 14, 2011 7:47 PM

Now, someone might say that I’m making the assumption of guilt here and I’ll say, yes I am.

This is the most glaring problem (among a few) with your entire line of reasoning. For example, throughout your entire article you say the little girl was raped by her father. Not "allegedly", or "claimed to be", but was. You already convicted this guy as soon as any allegation was made. And hell- if I had been a victim of violent, sexual crime I'm sure I would have a hell of a time being impartial myself. But honestly when I was reading this, it seems like you never once considered the possibility that this guy was innocent. For example,

As these (and other) defense lawyers are crying foul over the victims possibly getting some undue sympathy (WHAT?)

Any sympathy garnered by testifying with a dog is ABSOLUTELY undue if the witness is lying. You never consider the possibility that the witness is being untruthful- and that is what is so potentially dangerous. Also, you're so quick to throw these defense attorneys under the bus as terrible people, but maybe they honestly believe their client is innocent? Hell, maybe he is innocent? Everyone seems to hate lawyers until they need one. For what it's worth, I do criminal defense public interest work (if that wasn't obvious already from my idealistic ranting), and most of the other criminal defense attorneys I know are compassionate, kind and genuinely passionate about their jobs. Yes, there are some assholes- just like any other profession.

Honestly, the defense lawyers for this guy should slip this article into their appellate briefs and let it make all the points they need for how unduly prejudicial having a dog on the stand can be. This is where your argument really just lets the shit hit the fan:

If a child is distressed to the point that a psychiatrist and a judge think she needs a dog to comfort her so she might be able to give testimony, then by Godtopus, I’m saying that fucker did it. Kids don’t fake trauma this way. They might drum up the drama with crocodile tears or lie about a brother hitting, but a kid isn’t going to put herself through a trial, with a dog nuzzling her hand to help her choke out the words, as a pretense.

Really? Not only did you prove the defense attorney's point EXACTLY but you never considered the very real possibility of overzealous and unethical prosecutors who are aware of this rationale. You basically just said because there's a dog present on the stand to comfort the witness, "you are convicting that fucker". This is insane. You convict on evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt in your mind. You don't convict because the kid has a dog sitting next to her. This is the reasoning that is so dangerous and is why the lawyers whom you refer to with such disdain are exploring an appeal for a new trial. This thought process that you have demonstrated is exactly what could be exploited by overzealous DA's without a second thought simply by swinging by a shelter and renting out a puppy for a few hours to secure a conviction.

I had heard about this case recently and before I read your article I didn't think too much of it. I thought the appeal would probably fall flat (and I still don't like the defense's chances). But now I can see exactly why this appeal is justified even though it may sound completely ridiculous when you skim the headlines in the papers.

Posted by: THRILLHO at August 14, 2011 7:54 PM

The father was already convicted.

For clarification, my opinion outside the case has no bearing on how I would act as a juror. As I stated, when jurors are given instructions they receive explanations of what is or is not evidence. A dog sitting next to a child is not evidence and should not be considered as such, any more than a teddy bear would be.

Posted by: Cindy at August 14, 2011 8:03 PM

In this particular case, the accused not only raped his daughter but also got her pregnant. So, there is presumably genetic evidence of his guilt. I don't know if the girl was able to get an abortion (or had a miscarriage) or carried the baby to term or not.

Child molestation, sexual abuse and rape, are so, SO much more common than people ever suspect. For every case where someone innocent is accused, there are probably a thousand cases that are never reported.

Posted by: southwer at August 14, 2011 8:14 PM

Yes, the father was already convicted with the testimony of the girl in the presence of the dog.

Did the dog really make a difference? I have no idea. And no one really does except the jurors. I would be surprised if it did in this case. But my argument was that it clearly can make a difference and can be overly prejudicial and for that reason it warrants at least a discussion on appeal for the sake of the defendant and all future criminal defendants.

I doubt very much that a cute puppy makes the difference between a conviction and acquittal because it's cute and endearing to jurors. But I think it's very possible that if the jury knows the dog is necessary to comfort a traumatized witness, then it could immediately bolster the witness's story as a victim (as is demonstrated by your post where you say you would "convict the fucker" because the dog is necessary).

Of course we can all agree that all victims should be able to testify comfortably. Especially children. The tricky part is that under the law we don't know who is a victim and who may be untruthful until we get through the trial (and even after that, it still isn't perfect). The difference is that the defendant is at risk of being deprived of liberty, property and maybe even his or her life. When the stakes are that high, the system needs to provide the necessary safeguards to guarantee a fair trial. All I'm saying is that it is far from morally reprehensible or ridiculous to explore whether this is one of those necessary safeguards.

Posted by: THRILLHO at August 14, 2011 8:34 PM

"Who could have a problem with that? Lawyers, of course."

Well, I can assure you the prosecutors (also lawyers) have absolutely no problem with it.

I understand and appreciate the risk to the defendant, but I believe it can be mitigated via jury instructions, etc. You either believe in the system or you don't. My worry is that banning such methods in the courtroom would have the effect of silencing the most vulnerable victims of the most serious crimes and leaving perpetrators to get off scot-free. With sexual violence against a child, more often than not the child is the sole witness - without that witness, there's no conviction. Children are special witnesses, there's no getting around that.

As to being up in arms about lawyers, I am probably ornery because I am a lawyer. If you were a criminal defendant, believe me, you'd want your counsel screaming and yelling about the presence of a dog in the courtroom. They're just doing their job to advocate zealously.

Of course, this gets into my absolute inability/refusal to be a criminal defense attorney...but I digress.

Posted by: samantha t at August 14, 2011 8:49 PM

Well said, THRILLHO.

Posted by: Salieri2 at August 14, 2011 8:50 PM

In my work creating an LGBT Center, I am learning that rape is not just a situation involving "she(s)".

Posted by: sosgemini at August 14, 2011 9:23 PM

I believe that our justice system absolutely hinges on the willingness of people to defend criminals, or alleged criminals. All of the people who are disgusted by defense attorneys, to me, don't really believe in justice, they just believe in punishment. I admire people who are willing to defend the accused and I believe this debate is important. It's not that I don't care about crime victims, it's that I care very much that we conduct fair trials. If it turns out that having dogs in the court room does not unduly prejudice jurors, then I'm relieved that victims have a tool to comfort them though a difficult and in many cases, revictimizing testimony. But I do think it is reasonable to question the impact on jurors.

Posted by: Skye at August 14, 2011 10:48 PM

The lawyers that left comments here proved Cindy's point. Would this same lawyer have objected to this child holding her Teddy Bear? Or Favorite Doll? If I were a juror for this trial the presence of a dog would have had NO effect on me in regards to guilt or innocence. I would have found this man guilty on the evidence presented to me. However, if said Criminal Defense lawyer objected to the dog during the trial I would have made a mental note of that objection. Did the lawyers object during trial? Or are they only objecting to the dog now, because their client was found guilty? I don't want any lawyer...prosecutor or defense to be overzealous. Prove my innocence or guilt ethically, morally and within the law.

Posted by: Patrick at August 14, 2011 11:07 PM

Well said, Skye. I couldn't agree more.

Patrick, the lawyers must have raised the objection before the trial ended to preserve the record. They don't have the option of raising untimely objections in an effort to game the system or have it both ways.

Posted by: THRILLHO at August 15, 2011 12:56 AM

I thought the US was far more advanced in regards to shielding victims from their attackers so they don't have to meet them in court, for example via video? Especially in such cases?

All the people saying "I wouldn't be influenced": this is a pretty clear-cut case, there was probably enough evidence to convict the guy. What if there isn't as much evidence? What if it's a case of "person said - person said"? Lots of people think they wouldn't be influenced, well, think of the Milgram experiment and others in that vein, people are much more easily influenced than they believe.

I'm not saying let's not have dogs. But there might be ways to let victims have some comfort but keep the dog from view so that jurors can really be as impartial as they need to be.

Posted by: capitainejanvier at August 15, 2011 3:13 AM

It's a tough call, but I gotta side with those who noted that the bias is already built in.

If a child is distressed to the point that a psychiatrist and a judge think she needs a dog to comfort her so she might be able to give testimony, then by Godtopus, I’m saying that fucker did it.

Even the statement "The lawyers that left comments here proved Cindy's point", kinda proves a built-in bias. Based on no evidence other than a few sentences, you've rendered a verdict.

It's been too well established that people, even young people, maybe more often young people, lie about things like this. I'm not saying she was lying, I'm just saying it happens, and to ignore it based on our soft-hearted feelings on the matter undermines the basis for legal proceedings in general. It's bad enough that we still use juries who are often easily swayed to begin with, but the idea that an attorney wouldn't stoop to such theatrics or that a psychiatrist couldn't be found to corroborate the need to include the dog is a little naive. The entire "show" is often more about jury manipulation rather than facts.

Posted by: Protoguy at August 15, 2011 4:04 AM

"All of the people who are disgusted by defense attorneys, to me, don't really believe in justice, they just believe in punishment. I admire people who are willing to defend the accused and I believe this debate is important."

To clarify: I respect criminal defense attorneys, I just couldn't spend my energy, time, goodwill, etc. advocating for that group of people (the vast majority of whom, though not necessarily "guilty" under the letter of the law, did commit the malfeasance in question). They are entitled to a defense and I am grateful to live under a system where that's taken seriously, but I don't need to be the lawyer doing the defending.

Posted by: samantha t at August 15, 2011 9:08 AM

Cindy, I'm very sorry for the pain you suffered. I'll not pry any further but I hope you had a small amount of closure. Time doesn't heal, but it helps.

Posted by: kirbyjay at August 15, 2011 9:16 AM

As if a dog's presence is the only emotional string being pulled. If the child needs a therapy animal to be able to testify then so be it. I'm betting (though I don't know the process for sure) that it takes quite a number of professionals to determine that the child needs the animal. I'm fairly certain the prosecutors can't just say, "Let's stick a dog up there. That'll get the waterworks flowing." We need to be wary of violating the rights of the accused, but the accuser should have rights too. They should be able to present the fullest case they have, within the bounds of the law, and the alleged victim's testimony is going to be a large part of that.

Now mitigating the dog's effect on the jury is a bit more difficult. There are a lot of suggestions to hide the dog from view, but I'm not certain that is practical in all cases. I'd actually rather be totally upfront about it. Tell the jury why the dog is there, and put it in the forefront of their mind that the dog may have an effect on how they perceive the testimony. Explicitly say that the dog's presence should not be used as evidence that the testimony is true. Force the jurors to evaluate the dog's effect on their interpretation.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at August 15, 2011 9:50 AM

I was molested as a child.

I still think every single defendant deserves to be considered innocent until proved guilty.

The presumption of guilt is wrong. Unethical. Unfair. All the more so in a case like this.

Find a way to make it happen so there is no undue sympathy given to the witness.

Your own words make the case for the defense.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at August 15, 2011 1:46 PM