Facility Dogs in the Courtroom: Comfort Without Prejudice?

• Author: Kayla A. Burd,Dawn E. McQuiston
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016819844298
• Published date: 01 December 2019
• Date: 01 December 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Facility Dogs in the Courtroom:

Comfort Without Prejudice?

Kayla A. Burd

1

and Dawn E. McQuiston

2

Abstract

Courthouse facility dogs are expertly trained canines that assist individuals with psychological,

emotional, or physical difficulties in a myriad of courtroom situations. While these animals are

increasingly used to assist young witnesses in court, it is not yet known whether they are prejudicial

to defendants or the witnesses they accompany during trial. Across two studies utilizing mock trial

paradigms involving child witnesses, we explored the impact of courtroom accommodations (facility

dog vs. teddy bear vs. no accommodation) on mock jurors’ judgments about the defendant and child

witness. In Experiment 1, teddy bears, but not facility dogs, were prejudicial to defendants, while in

Experiment 2, neither facility dogs nor teddy bears were prejudicial. Further, mock jurors’ per-

ceptions of the child witness were not influenced by courtroom accommodations. Evidence from

both studies suggests that, contrary to various legal arguments concerning due process, facility dogs

may not influence verdict, verdict confidence, or sentencing.

Keywords

courtroom innovations, jury decision making, legal issues, sex crimes, child witnesses

Testifying in court is a stressful experience for most people, but can be especially difficult for young

witnesses or victims of serious offenses like child abuse and sexual misconduct (Goodman et al.,

1992). Children are often reluctant and scared to testify in an open courtroom for a variety of

reasons, including being hesitant to face the alleged offender, having to generally discuss difficult

subject matter, and having to specifically recount their abuse (Sas, 1991). Based on these and other

stressors that surround courtroom testimony, it is possible that the information children provide on

the witness stand is not as thorough and accurate as it might otherwise be if elicited during an

interview in another environment (Saywitz & Nathanson, 1993). Several evidentiary and procedural

rulings have been made in recent years in an attempt to combat some of the difficulties children face

as testifying witnesses.

Courts in the U.S. exercise the use of therapeutic jurisprudence—the law’s ability to influence

the psychological well-being of those involved in the justice system—implying that the law may

1

Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

2

Wofford College, Spartanburg, SC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kayla A. Burd, Iowa State University, W112 Lagomarcino Hall, 901 Stange Road, Ames, IA 50011-1041, USA.

Email: kburd@iastate.edu

Criminal Justice Review

2019, Vol. 44(4) 515-536

ª2019 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734016819844298

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

actually serve as a therapeutic instrument of well-being (Dellinger, 2009). Some argue that the law

should be analyzed to determine how law and the practice of law could be utilized or changed to

facilitate positive therapeutic effects (Zacharias, 1999). This belief and goal correspond with the

implementation of reforms, innovations, and accommodations in the courtroom, especially for

young and/or vulnerable witnesses (i. e., those who are young, elderly, or dis abled mentally or

physically). These reforms and accommodations are thought to ease the harm caused to young and

vulnerable witnesses during courtroom participation (Goodman, Quas, Bulkley, & Shapiro, 1999).

By reducing the stress experienced in this setting, witnesses’ testimony maybe more complete and

accurate.

Lengthy legal precedence details permissible methods of accommodating vulnerable witnesses in

court. Federal Rule of Evidence 611 all ows trial judges ultimate discreti on when deciding the

procedures for examining witnesses and presenting evidence. This rule aims to make the presenta-

tion of evidence and the interrogation of witnesses effective in attaining the truth while protecting

witnesses from undue embarrassment and harassment. Other federal laws specifically protect vul-

nerable witnesses and allow them special accommodations in the courtroom. For ex ample, the

Victims of Child Abuse Act (1990) allows for special accommodations for children. According to

this Act, depending on the circumstances, children are allowed “comfort toys” or dolls, a support

person to accompany them in court, or may testify via closed-circuit television or through hearsay

testimony of their forensic interview statements (Dellinger, 2009). In general, comfort items are

often permitted when there is a compelling need for the use of such an item. Indeed, 26%of judges

and 76%of prosecutors surveyed in one state in the United States indicated that children often testify

while accompanied by a toy or a friend (Sigler, Crowley, & Johnson, 1990). Judges frequently

support accommodating children to aid in their comfort in the courtroom (Bradley, 2014); however,

research indicates the presence of a support person specifically may negatively impact the perceived

credibility of child witnesses (McAuliff, Lapin, & Michel, 2015).

The acceptance of comfort items accompanying young witnesses during trial (typically sexual

abuse cases) is also well-established in case law. For instance, in Smith v. State of Wyoming (2005),

the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s conviction, rejecting the claim that a teddy bear held

by the victim during her trial testimony violated Smith’s right to a fair trial. In State of Idaho v. Cliff

(1989), the defendant claimed that the court’s allowance of the 8-year-old victim to carry a doll to

the stand violated his right to a fair trial as well as his right to face his accuser in that the doll acted as

a “psychological security blanket.” The appellate court rejected this claim and upheld the convic-

tion. In addition, in State of Washington v. Hakimi (2004), the defendant argued on appeal that the

court abused its discretion in allowing two 9-year-old victims to carry dolls to the witness stand;

however, the appellate court affirmed the conviction.

A relatively new form of therapeutic jurisprudence as it concerns the accommodation of vulner-

able witnesses involves the use of canine companions. Courthouse “facility dogs” are utilized by the

courts to assist vulnerable witnesses confronted with psychological, emotional, or physical difficul-

ties during legal proceedings. Facility dogs are expertly trained canines and graduates of accredited

programs under the guidance of Assistance Dogs International. They are used to provide companion-

ship and comfort by accompanying vulnerable witnesses, typically children, during forensic inter-

views and in-court testimony when it is believed that the witness would be too distraught or too

emotional to give full or effective testimony (Dellinger, 2009). They have also been used to assist

elderly and disabled witnesses, as well as defendants. When utilized in the courtroom, the dogs are

typically instructed to lie silently on the floor near to or just within the witness’ view and, in some

cases, are hidden from jurors’ view entirely. According to the Courthouse Dogs Foundation

(www.courthousedogs.org), there are currently over 200 facility dogs working in nearly 40 states,

as well as in Canada, Chile, and other countries. The use of facility dogs during trial has anecdotally

been considered very helpful by witnesses, victims, victim advocates, attorneys, and others (see

516 Criminal Justice Review 44(4)