By Helping a Girl Testify at a Rape Trial, a Dog Ignites a Legal Debate

New York Times ^ | August 8, 2011 | WILLIAM GLABERSON

[mrjesse]

POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. — Rosie, the first judicially approved courtroom dog in New York, was in the witness box here nuzzling a 15-year-old girl who was testifying that her father had raped and impregnated her. Rosie sat by the teenager’s feet. At particularly bad moments, she leaned in. When the trial ended in June with the father’s conviction, the teenager “was most grateful to Rosie above all,” said David A. Crenshaw, a psychologist who works with the teenager.

“She just kept hugging Rosie,” he continued.

Now an appeal planned by the defense lawyers is placing Rosie at the heart of a legal debate that will test whether there will be more Rosies in courtrooms in New York and, possibly, other states. [snip] His lawyers, David S. Martin and Steven W. Levine of the public defender’s office, have raised a series of objections that they say seems likely to land the case in New York’s highest court. They argue that as a therapy dog, Rosie responds to people under stress by comforting them, whether the stress comes from confronting a guilty defendant or lying under oath.

But they say jurors are likely to conclude that the dog is helping victims expose the truth. “Every time she stroked the dog,” Mr. Martin said in an interview, “it sent an unconscious message to the jury that she was under stress because she was telling the truth.” ...

[Mrs. Don-o]

From the article itself, we know the father was charged with impregnating his daughter, but we don't know if she has a lving child. It could be (hypothesis here) that the baby-DNA is not available because the baby died via a miscarriage, was aborted, or died in infancy.

[PieterCasparzen]

Anyone else notice how nowadays people are letting their dogs walk them when it used to be people walking their dogs?

Yes.

[Joe 6-pack]

WOOOF!

The Doggie Ping list is for FReepers who would like to be notified of threads relating to all things canid. If you would like to join the Doggie Ping Pack (or be unleashed from it), FReemail me.

[Pontiac]

It could be (hypothesis here) that the baby-DNA is not available because the baby died via a miscarriage, was aborted, or died in infancy.

The only way that the DNA of the baby would not have been available for the court is if the baby died via a miscarriage before the crime was reported.

If the baby died after the crime was reported the girl should have been in the care of state (either in foster care or with some family member appointed guardian by a court).

If the loss of the child happened after the crime was reported if should have been made clear to the guardian that the corpse was state evidence.

In any event other than an abortion the body should have been preserved as human remains.

[Venturer]

There is no low ,too low, for a lawyer ,to go.

[Ditter]

“Badgers? We don't need no stinkin’ badgers!”

Oh sorry, what were we talking about?

[vwbug]

The defense is Badgering the witness your honor

[MrB]

but no badgers...

no, we don’t need no stinkin’ badgers.

[MrB]

Raul's Wild Kingdom

[MrB]

We don't need no stinking badgers clip

[LongElegantLegs]

If she was raped and impregnated, why not just test the resulting baby’s DNA and avoid making the girl testify all together?

[Ditter]

LOL!

[LongElegantLegs]

Prosecutors are lawyers, too...

[PzLdr]

Give him a gerbil. It’ll open him up to his soon to be new experiences, as it were.

[PzLdr]

DNA could be gotten from the father by court order, whether he wanted to give it or not.Depending on the girl’s age, that’ll give you a Rape 3d, or at best, a Rape 2d.

That aside, the girl’s testimony would be needed if forcible compulsion, i.e Rape 1st was involved.

[Venturer]

Yeah ,Like Mike Nifong, the prosecutor in the Duke case.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Doesn’t it matter in what manner the prosecution won? Would you cheer your team so much if they could manage to get drunk, blind umpires?

This very kind of scenario is how bright lines (or not so bright ones) get drawn by the USSC. The appeal here will most definitely be about a point of law.

[equaviator]

Thanks, I needed that.

[LongElegantLegs]

Yes, exactly! I think we’re on the same page...I meant to say that defense lawyers are not always the bad guys.

[AnAmericanMother]

If the DNA evidence was available (and if he forced her to get an abortion, which is pretty common, it wouldn't be), a jury is still going to want live testimony. You'd be surprised how many jurors are suspicious of scientific evidence all by itself, with no framework.

And there's also the matter of the defendant's right to be confronted by the witnesses against him. The Child Hearsay Rule has been enacted in many states to sidestep this, but in some jurisdictions the victim still has to take the stand. And, again, many jurors want to hear from the victim before they'll convict.

You can never predict how an appeals court is going to rule, but it seems to me that allowing the dog in the witness box is along the lines of allowing the victim to testify behind a screen so she doesn't have to look at the perp, or allowing her mama or sister to sit next to her -- especially with children, the trial judge has a lot of discretion in controlling his courtroom and directing the examination of witnesses. At least he does around here.