Legal Debate: Should Cute Therapy Dog Have Been Allowed on Witness Stand During Trial?

There is currently a case in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York regarding a therapy dog who took the witness stand with an underage abuse victim.  Apparently the 15 year old girl had been raped and impregnated by the defendant, her own father.  Her dog, Rosie, is a cute golden retriever therapy dog trained to recognize and comfort a person who is under stress.  Rosie was allowed to sit next to the child on the witness stand as she bravely testified against her father.  When the child became distressed during moments of difficult testimony, Rosie recognized this and would nuzzle or lean into the child.  Thus allowing her to calm down and continue testifying.  The trial ended with a 25 year to life conviction against the father.

After the conviction, the defense filed an appeal which is currently pending.  One of their chief objections is that a therapy dog responds to the testifier’s stress, whether that stress is a result of telling the truth or from telling a lie.  The jury in turn sees the dog comforting the victim and assumes that it is because the victim is telling the truth.  Therefore the defense feels that the jury was unfairly impacted by observing this unconscious message portrayed by the “cute” dog.

Now, permitting a service dog into court is not new.  Many states have allowed service dogs into court with impaired victims.  There is some debate however, about whether a therapy dog, which is there to comfort a traumatized victim, falls into the same category as a service dog under the law.

Many are following this important appellate case due to the legal implications in cases such as these.

So what do you think?  Should a therapy dog or service dog be allowed in court?  Do you feel that the cuteness of a dog can sway a jury?  And if so, does that mean that a cute witness of any type, animal or human, will prejudice a jury?  What does that say about a jury or juror if they are swayed by cuteness?  Think about what a ruling on this case could possibly mean to future cases and the precedent it will leave.