Attorneys object to service dogs aiding witnesses
Emotional support dogs may join certain witnesses to violent crimes on the stand if a recently filed bill passes — a proposal that makes sense to victim advocates but has defense attorneys howling.
“This could interfere with a person’s right to a fair trial,” said Randy Gioia, deputy chief counsel for the state’s public defender agency. “It introduces an unknown element. It could give the witness an aura of vulnerability and credibility, and that’s a problem for a person accused of a crime.”
The bill, presented by Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) at the behest of a constituent, would allow a witness to have a “certified facility dog” if they are under 18 or have a developmental disability and are testifying in a case about a violent crime. A court “may” allow support dogs to those who don’t fit the criteria, according to the bill.
The dogs must graduate an assistance dog organization, and to make sure the animal does not influence the jury, a judge must “instruct the jury on the role of the facility dog,” according to the bill.
“This is an effort to make the criminal justice system more humane for children,” said Ellen O’Neill-Stephens, a former prosecutor who founded the Bellevue, Wash.-based Courthouse Dogs Foundation. “There is science behind this, and these dogs calm people so they are better able to articulate what happened.”
According to the foundation, there are 155 service dogs in 35 states. Liam Lowney, executive director of the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance, said his organization has not yet taken a position on the bill but that he knows how useful support dogs can be for victims.
“I have seen the benefits of dogs working with survivors,” he said. “They absolutely have a calming effect.”
Defense attorneys say they have sympathy for victims, but adding support dogs to the equation could unfairly prejudice defendants who are fighting for their innocence.
“The very fact that a witness shows up in court with a dog signals to the jury that they need it because something bad has happened,” said Peter Elikann, a longtime defense attorney. “It allows them to presume that the person is being truthful and genuinely a victim.”
Brad Bailey, a defense attorney and former prosecutor, said support dogs “could send subtle messages to the jury that they should protect, support and empathize with the witness. I would be very concerned about this.”
The use of emotional support dogs has been challenged numerous times across the country, but the practice has not yet been tossed by an appeals court.