Placing Fido on the Stand: Do facility dogs for testifying witnesses skew jurors?

Courtrooms can be intimidating, especially for those called to testify. Parties can request trial accommodations for these individuals in an effort to make them more comfortable. Recently, focus has shifted towards a more controversial accommodation: providing witnesses with support dogs on the stand. While it sounds as if this could potentially skew juries, studies show that their use has little to no impact on a jury.

Use of support dogs can help child and other vulnerable witnesses feel more comfortable while testifying, reducing stress levels and resulting in more accurate testimony. Many courtrooms allow the use of “facility dogs,” or certified assistance dogs, to assist victims and witnesses while they testify. While the benefits of having facility dogs are promising, some argue that these furry friends have the potential to skew juries. 

A major concern of using facility dogs is that they’re unfairly prejudicial towards the opposing party and can lead to juror bias. Some worry that the visual appearance of a dog would give jurors a more favorable impression of the witness or imply that the victim-witness was more severely harmed by the incident. Contrarily, some worry that a juror’s negative feelings towards dogs could transfer onto the witness or it could otherwise distract the jury.

Traditionally, the use of facility dogs has been narrowly applied to child victims and witnesses. For example, Arizona has enacted legislation allowing child victims to use facility dogs while testifying. In order to ensure that it “does not influence the jury,” the statute requires courts to instruct the jury on the facility dog’s role and inform them that it is a trained animal. Other states like Florida have expanded their use to include victims/witnesses who were children at the time of any sexual abuse, or those with intellectual disabilities. 

While most judges support the use of facility dogs, minimizing potential juror bias seems to be at the forefront of their minds. Many courts take preventative steps to minimize juror bias such as keeping the dog out of sight, only allowing professionally trained dogs, and providing limiting jury instructions. 

Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court allowed the use of a facility dog for a minor victim after finding that the trial court took adequate steps to mitigate any juror bias. In Commonwealth v. Purnell (259 A.3d 974), the court implemented a “balancing test” when deciding whether to allow the use of a facility dog, weighing the benefits to the witness against any potential prejudice to the defendant. While the lower court allowed the use of the facility dog because it would help the witness testify more truthfully, the court also considered the defendant’s interests and implemented the following requirements: 

(1) the court had to address the dog as a “service dog” to lessen any sympathy for the witness from the jury; 

(2) the dog had to enter and exit the courtroom outside of the jury’s presence and remain hidden during the testimony; and 

(3) the court had to provide limiting jury instructions.

While courts continue to take steps to mitigate juror bias towards children using facility dogs, evidence supporting their use for adults is more scarce. Until then, Fido will have a tougher time earning his spot on the stand next to adult witnesses.