101A - American Bar Association
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
101A
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES
FEBRUARY 22, 2021
RESOLUTION
RESOLVED, that the American Bar Association urges federal, state, local, territorial and
tribal governments and foreign governments to enact laws authorizing courts to allow
specially trained dogs (called facility dogs) to assist victims/vulnerable witnesses in their
participation at any stage of the criminal justice system, including during their testimony
in any judicial proceedings, and, to ensure the health and well-being of the facility dogs.101A
REPORT
Introduction
Many victims of violence lose the power of their voice. Depending on the degree of trauma
and the nature of the crime, a victim may feel ostracized and powerless. Articulating the
details of the criminal acts perpetrated against a victim to strangers, including police, jurors,
judges, spectators, and the perpetrator and their counsel, can trigger disturbing emotions
and rekindle the trauma the victims experienced during the actual events. Recognizing the
therapeutic effect of canines, several agencies throughout the United States engage
professionally trained facility dogs to accompany vulnerable victims/witnesses during
various stages of the criminal justice process including their testimony in the courtroom. 1
However, the implementation of this approach needs to be balanced with guarantees for
welfare of the dogs and the fairness to all parties in the proceedings. This resolution directly
advances ABA Goal 4, advancing the rule of law by assuring “meaningful access to justice
for all persons” including victims and other vulnerable individuals.
Facility Dogs
A “facility dog” is an expertly trained animal who assists an anxious or traumatized
individual to communicate the facts that he or she has experienced or witnessed. The facility
dog may be under the guardianship of a facility, e.g. the county or a non-for-profit, or in
some instances the handler. Ordinarily the facility dogs reside with their handlers during
their service.
The temperament of this type of dog is more subdued than most other dogs. A facility
dog detects a human being’s stress level and as a result can calm a victim/witness with a
gentle nudge to that person’s leg or by simply laying a fury head on the person’s lap, making
the individual feel safe.
It is best practices for a facility dog to be insured and evaluated from a recognized
organization for training and temperament, specifically undergoing extensive training,
sometimes as long as two years. They are sensitized to be resilient in stressful situations,
while also expressing confidence and affection. 2
Such a dog can be paired with myriad handlers including forensic interviewers,
psychologists, social workers, counselors/therapists, victim advocates, law enforcement
personnel, and prosecutors. These dogs can provide beneficial support to victims/witnesses
in a variety of circumstances, from an initial interview or forensic examination, to pre-trial
briefings, courtroom testimony, sentencing, and to other post-conviction proceedings.
1Casey Holder, Comment: All Dogs Go to Court: The Impact of Court Facility Dogs as Comfort for Child
Witnesses on a Defendant’s Right to a Fair Trial, 50 HOUSTON L. REV. 1155 (Symposium, 2013).
2Rebecca Wallick, Dogs in the Courtroom, Follow-Up Part II, THE BARK (Aug. 2011, updated Feb. 2015),
https://thebark.com/content/dogs-courtroom-follow-part-ii.101A
The positive effects derived from a canine accompanying a victim/witness are rooted
in science. Research has shown that traumatized individuals may experience a surge of the
hormone cortisol that affects their cognitive capacity, resulting in difficulty recalling
information or focusing on a question. Research has also found that interacting with a dog
can produce another hormone called “oxytocin,” sometimes referred to as the “love
hormone,” which is associated with the feeling of well-being and comfort, and can assist a
victim in communicating effectively. 3
By establishing a safe and stable environment, these dogs assist the victim/witness
to better recall and articulate critical, and truthful information. Trained to perform
unobtrusively in public, the facility dog will sit quietly next to a victim/witness for long periods
of time while the victim/witness is interviewed, prepared, or providing testimony in a
courtroom. When in the courtroom, the dogs do not interrupt the flow of testimony or disturb
the proceedings. 4
Legal Authority for Courtroom Participation
There are almost three dozen states with programs that involve hundreds of dogs in
the role of facility dogs. In the last five years, at least 15 states have enacted specific statutes
permitting certified dogs to accompany victims/witnesses in specified circumstances. Some
statutes limit the accompaniment of a certified canine to underage victims/witnesses
(ranging from 13 to 18 years of age) in criminal matters or in noncriminal matters involving
child abuse or neglect. 5 Other statutes extend the accommodation to adults who are
intellectually, physically, or developmentally disabled, or to victims/witnesses of sexual
offenses, irrespective of age, 6 or victims of domestic violence. As the concept and its
benefits have become better understood, some state legislatures have broadened the
courts’ authority to permit canines to accompany any vulnerable witness, as defined by
statute or case law. 7
In states where there is no particular statute, the courts have relied on the trial judge’s
inherent discretion to direct courtroom protocol and decorum. Some courts have also
invoked specific statutes to buttress that authority. For example, in 2013, a New York trial
3 Gabriela N. Sandoval, Court Facility Dog - Easing the Apprehensive Witness, 39 COLORADO LAWYER, No. 4,
April 2010; JAMES C. HA, DOG BEHAVIOR: MODERN SCIENCE AND OUR CANINE COMPANIONS, (Academic Press
2018).
4 Rebecca Wallick, Stilson Comforts at Sentencing, THE BARK (Aug. 2009, updated Feb. 2015)
https://thebark.com/content/stilson-comforts-sentencing.
5 See, e.g., ARKANSAS CODE ANN. § 16-43-1002; IDAHO CODE § 19-3023, MISSISSIPPI CODE ANN. § 99-43-101;
and Oklahoma Stat. Ann. § 2611.12(C) (therapeutic dog).
6 See, e.g., 75 ILLINOIS COMP. STAT. ANN. § 106B-10; and FLORIDA STAT. ANN. § 92.55 (facility dogs and therapy
dogs).
7 See, e.g., ALABAMA CODE §§ 12-21-147 & 12-21-148 (therapy and facility dogs); ARIZONA REV. STAT. ANN. §
8-422; CONNECTICUT. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 51-10d (therapy dogs), HAWAII REV’D. STAT. § 621-30; LOUISIANA REV.
STAT. § 15-284; MICHIGAN COMPLIED LAWS ANN. § 600.2163a; VIRGINIA CODE ANN. § 182.67.9.1; and REV. CODE
WASHINGTON § 10.52.110.
2101A
court permitted Rose, a graduate facility dog placed with the Poughkeepsie children’s home,
to assist a child witness to testify against her father in a criminal sexual assault case. 8 The
judge relied on a 1986 amendment to the Fair Treatment Standards for Crime Victims,
pursuant to Executive Law on § 642-a(4), authorizing a judge to “be sensitive to the
psychological and emotional stress a child witness may undergo when testifying.”
There is national recognition of the benefits derived from the assistance of facility
dogs in the courtroom. In 2018, the National District Attorneys Association 9 and the
Association of Prosecuting Attorneys 10 each passed a resolution supporting the
implementation of facility dogs to accompany victims/vulnerable witnesses in the courtroom.
On December 19, 2019, the United States Senate passed a bill sponsored by Senator John
Cornyn (TX) called Dogs as Witnesses Guardians Act (S. 1029) (“DAWG Act”), or the
Courthouse Dogs Act, which authorizes federal judges to permit a certified facility dog to
accompany a witness testifying in criminal proceedings. 11 The legislation is now pending in
the House of Representatives with bipartisan support. 12
Expand the concept Internationally
The utility of facility dogs has been embraced in other countries worldwide and its
continued expansion should be encouraged. It is being replicated in a number of countries,
including Argentina, Chile, Canada, the United Kingdom and parts of continental Europe.
Here are some examples.
• Dr. Elizabeth Spruin, a canine behaviorist and an investigative psychologist in the
School of Psychology, Politics and Sociology at the Canterbury Christ Church
University in England, specializes in the use of dogs to support vulnerable members
of society in her role as the Director of the Justice Support Dogs International
Laboratory. The research lab is dedicated to examining the benefits that specially
trained dogs can provide victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. 13
Oliver, a black lab certified facility dog, was the first canine to work throughout the
British justice system providing support to victims and witnesses of crimes, including
children with autism and emotional issues. Dr. Spruin’s research shows that Oliver’s
presence makes victims/witnesses feel less anxious and more relaxed in legal
proceedings, enabling them to communicate more clearly and openly.
8 See, e.g. People v. Tohom, 109 A.D.3d 253 (2nd Dept. 2013), leave denied, 22 N.Y.3d 1203 (2014).
9 2018 Resolution of the National District Attorneys Association, https://ndaa.org/wp-content/uploads/NDAA-
Best-Practice-Resolution_Courthouse-
Dogs.pdf?click=Courthouse%2520Dogs%2520Best%2520Practice%2520.
10 Courthouse Facility Dog Resolution of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (Feb. 7, 2018),
https://www.apa-inc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Courthouse-Facility-Dogs-Resolution-2018-Final.pdf.
11 John Cornyn Newsroom, (Dec. 20, 2019), https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/content/news/cornyn’s-dogs-
courthouse-bill-passes-senate; S.1029, Courthouse Dogs Act, 116th Cong.,
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s1029/details.
12 See H.R. 5403, Courthouse Dogs Act, 116th Cong. (Feb. 6, 2020),
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr5403.
13 Paws for Court, THE PSYCHOLOGIST (Dec. 2016), https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-29/december-
2016/paws-court.
3101A
• Operating from its headquarters in Brussels Belgium, Victim Support Europe (“VSE”),
an international advocacy group, is committed to offering the assistance of facility
dogs to victims. VSE has partnered with other European organizations to advance a
multi-country project on research, best practices, and implementation of a facility dog
program to address, inter alia, secondary victimization or victim-blaming. There are
currently facility dog programs in Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Serbia and
Hungary. For instance, Children at Risk in Ireland has partnered with Dogs for the
Disabled to raise funds to train a courthouse dog to assist minors to testify in criminal
matters. 14
• Kim Gramlich is the Founder and Chair of Justice Facility Dogs Canada (“JFDC”), an
organization that provides advocacy and education across Canada. JFDC supports
Canadian legislation which would permit facility dogs to aid victims within the
Canadian criminal justice system. One of JFDC’s goals is to develop Canadian crisis
response teams that would respond to mass casualty incidents and disasters.
• In 2009, Cecilia Marre, Executive Director of Corporacion Bocalan Confiar, an
assistance dog organization in Santiago, Chile, started a victim support program that
employs canines to assist public prosecutors in non-jury criminal trials. 15
• Titan, a five-year old Golden Retriever is a facility dog working in the courtroom with
children in Buenos Aires, Argentina. 16
• Joanne Baker, a non-lawyer in Australia with a Master of Science in Canine Science,
is the President and Managing Director of Righteous Pups Australia, Inc. She pairs
dogs with at-risk teens and young people with disabilities, including autism spectrum
disorders. 17
• In New Zealand, Gail Bryce, a court’s victim advisor, introduced the concept of
courthouse facility dogs through Louie, her black Labrador who worked in the
Tauranga court. Louie died in December 2018, after assisting in 35 trials. 18
14 RTE, CARI seeking to employ courthouse dog to help children give evidence (Nov. 14, 2019),
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/1114/1090946-courthouse-dog/; Top Dogs, LAW SOCIETY GAZETTE 36
(Apr. 2018), https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/gazette/gazette-pdfs/gazette-2018/april-2018-
gazette.pdf.
15 Ellen O’Neill-Stephens, Courthouse Dogs Go South, THE BARK (June 2010, updated July 2018),
https://thebark.com/content/courthouse-dogs-go-south.
16 This Argentine Courtroom Therapy Dog That Helps Kids Is the Best Boi, THE BUBBLE (Jan. 7, 2020),
https://www.thebubble.com/argentine-courtroom-therapy-dog-titan.
17 RIGHTEOUS PUPS AUSTRALIA, http://righteouspups.org.au/author/tikkumolam/.
18 Louie the Labrador, JUSTICE: OUR PEOPLE, OUR COMMUNITIES 14 (2017),
https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Justice-Our-People-and-Communities.pdf.
4101A
Implementation
Although some state statutes in the United States provide for such an
accommodation upon the court’s own motion, 19 the usual procedure is for a party seeking
the relief to make an application. In some jurisdictions the movant is not required to make a
showing, placing the onus on the defendant to establish prejudice or impropriety; in other
jurisdictions the movant must establish the necessity of the dog to facilitate the witness’s
testimony, 20 and in other jurisdictions the record must simply demonstrate that the witness
would have difficulty testifying without the assistance of a facility dog. 21
In those jurisdictions where a showing is required the moving party seeks permission
in written form to the court, and sets forth the following facts: (1) the credentials of the facility
dog, including the type of training and certification attained; (2) the extent of any prior in-
court experience by the canine; (3) details about the experience and the training of the
facility dog’s handler; (4) any established relationship between the witness/victim and the
canine, and noting if the presence of the dog was requested by the victim/witness; and (5)
the low risk of any disruption by the canine in the court proceedings, including information
about any liability insurance policy. 22
There are several precautionary measures that would minimize any prejudice from
the presence of the canine in the courtroom. 23 The parties should seek the court’s approval
to voir dire prospective jurors on the issue of whether a facility dog accompanying a witness
would create any undue sympathy for the witness or cause prejudice to a party in any way. 24
The parties and the court should agree upon the procedure for the physical introduction of
the facility dog into the courtroom outside the presence of the jury. 25 The parties should also
discuss with the court the need for and wording of any instructions to the jury to be included
with the preliminary instructions before the testimony begins, and with the general
instructions at the conclusion of the testimony. The jurors should be informed that while a
dog may be accompanying a particular witness during the trial, the jury should not make or
19 See, e.g., FLORIDA. STAT. ANN. § 92.55 and MISSISSIPPI CODE ANN. § 99-43-101.
20 This standard is codified in some states See, e.g. HAWAII REV. STAT. § 621-30(b) (a “compelling necessity”),
VIRGINIA CODE ANN. § 18.2-67.9:1(C) (preponderance of the evidence); and REV. CODE WASHINGTON §
10.52.110(5) (dog’s presence is necessary).
21 See, e.g., People v Tohom, 109 A.D.3d at 253 ; ANN. CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §§ 868.4(b)(3); OKLAHOMA
STAT. ANN. § 2611.12 (D)(1)(c); and VIRGINIA CODE ANN. § 18.2-67.9:1(C)(2).
22 See, e.g., OKLAHOMA STAT. ANN. § 2611.12 (D)(1)(b); HAWAII REV. STAT. § 621-30(c)(2); REV. CODE
WASHINGTON § 10.52.110(4)(b); and ALABAMA CODE §§ 12-21-147(a)(3)(a)(5) & 12-21-148(a)(1)(d) (requires a
minimum $500,000 liability policy).
23 Some defense counsel argue that the dog may make the witness appear more appealing to the jury or is
undergoing therapy, or the defendant may appear so menacing that the witness needs protection. William
Glaberson, By Helping a Girl Testify at a Rape Trial, a Dog Ignites a Legal Debate, (Aug. 8, 2011),
https://tinyurl.com/42y8nu9. The research of Professor Dawn McQuiston of Wofford College in Spartanburg,
South Carolina, indicates that the presence of the canines has no effect on jurors. See Dave Collins, Comfort
Dogs in Court Do Opposite for Some Defenders, Judges, CHI. TRIB. (Apr. 5, 2018),
https://tinyurl.com/y978xvbr; Kayla Burd, Facility Dogs in the Courtroom: Comfort Without Prejudice?, SAGE J.
(May 2, 2019).
24 See, e.g., REV. CODE WASH. § 10.52.110(7)(a); and ARKANSAS CODE ANN. § 16-43-1002(e).
25 REV. CODE WASHINGTON § 10.52.110(7)(b)&(c).
5101A
draw any conclusions based on the presence of the dog’s service. 26 In addition, the courts
may review any medical or psychological issues raised by parties regarding any severe
allergies or phobias from dogs and consider appropriate accommodations if necessary.
Securing the Facility Dog’s Welfare
It is also necessary that the facility dog’s health and well-being be protected. These
canines work long hours and absorb much of the stress and negative energy from the
victims/witnesses.
It is imperative that the canines be provided with a suitable environment for shelter,
dog relief breaks and comfortable resting periods. They need ample water and appropriate
nutritional foods. They need adequate playtime and familiar toys to relieve stress. For
example, a familiar bed should be provided, particularly since the dog visits different
courtrooms and environments. Equally important, the facility dogs should receive regular
grooming and bathing, and veterinarian care beyond the annual visits to check for any
injuries and/or signs of stress. There should be advance arrangement not only for daily care,
and but also for long-term care. In many instances, the facility dog may remain with the
handler upon retirement; and provision for their retirement should be made during their
service. By way of best practice, a facility dog should have a long-term guardian throughout
the dog’s lifetime and persons designated to oversee the health and well-being of the dog
during the facility service career and in retirement.
Conclusion
Increasingly facility dogs are recognized as assets to assist victims/witnesses with trauma,
mental illness, or intellectual disability and those who might otherwise be unable or unwilling
to testify. With appropriate procedures in place and oversight for the canine, facility dogs
deserve a role in the criminal justice system and to ensure their well-being will be protected
during their facility service career and in retirement.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Raia
Chair, International Law Section
February 2021
26 See, e.g., ARIZONA REV. STAT. ANN. § 8-422(C).
6101A
GENERAL INFORMATION FORM
Submitting Entity: International Law Section
Government and Public Sector Lawyers Division
Submitted By: Joseph Raia, Chair
1. Summary of Resolution
The American Bar Association urges federal, state, local, territorial and tribal
governments and foreign governments to enact laws authorizing courts to allow specially
trained dogs (called facility dogs) to assist victims/vulnerable witnesses in their
participation at any stage of the criminal justice system, including during their testimony
in any judicial proceedings, and, to ensure the health and well-being of the facility dogs.
2. Approval by Submitting Entity.
This resolution was approved by Council of the International Law Section and the Council
of the Government and Public Service Lawyers Division at the virtual 2020 ABA Annual
Meeting in Chicago, Illinois on July 31, 2020, and August 1, 2020, respectively.
3. Has this or a similar resolution been submitted to the House or Board previously?
No
4. What existing Association policies are relevant to this Resolution and how would they be
affected by its adoption?
NONE
5. If this is a late report, what urgency exists which requires action at this meeting of the
House?
N/A
6. Status of Legislation (If applicable)
As indicated in the report there are at least 15 states that have enacted specific statutes
permitting certified dogs to accompany victims/witnesses in specified circumstances and
there is pending federal legislation, H.R. 5403, Courthouse Dogs Act, 116th Cong. (Feb.
6, 2020), https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr5403.
7. Brief explanation regarding plans for implementation of the policy, if adopted by the
House of Delegates.
7101A
Propose legislation to state legislatures that have not enacted specific statutes, support
the pending Congressional legislation, and encourage legislation in territorial and tribal
governments with accompanying administrative and regulatory prescriptions, and urge
foreign governments to adopt a policy to allow facility dogs to assist victims /vulnerable
witnesses.
8. Cost to the Association. (Both direct and indirect)
None
9. Disclosure of Interest. (If applicable)
None
10. Referrals.
The Commission on Youth at Risk
The Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence
The Judicial Division
The Criminal Justice Section
The Victim Support Europe, headquartered in Brussels, Belgium supported this
resolution in or about the late summer 2020.
11. Contact Name and Address Information. (Prior to the meeting. Please include the name,
address, telephone number and email address).
Jill Mariani, marianig@dany.nyc.gov, work (212) 335-9143
12. Contact Name and Address Information. (Who will present the report to the House?
Please include name, address, teleshopped number, cell phone number and email
address.)
One of the following delegates to be determined:
Gabrielle Buckley, Gannon Center for Women & Leadership, Loyola University
Chicago, 773-508-8435, gbuckley1@luc.edu
Michael Burke, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, Washington, DC 20006; 202-677-4046,
mike.burke@agg.com
Steven Richman, Clark Hill PLC, 210 Carnegie Center, Ste 102, Princeton, NJ 08540,
609-785-2911; srichman@clarkhill.com
GPSLD Delegates – Gregory G. Brooker, Assistant United States Attorney
8101A
600 U.S. Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415-1320, phone:
612-664-5689; greg.brooker@usdoj.gov and Alexander W. Purdue, Santa Fe, NM
87506; phone: 505-989-1011; JerZBoyNM@gmail.com
9101A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Summary of the Resolution
The American Bar Association urges federal, state, local, territorial and tribal
governments and foreign governments to enact laws authorizing courts to allow specially
trained dogs (called facility dogs) to assist victims/vulnerable witnesses in their
participation at any stage of the criminal justice system, including during their testimony
in any judicial proceedings, and, to ensure the health and well-being of the facility dogs.
2. Summary of the Issue that the Resolution Addresses
Protect in law both the welfare of victims/vulnerable witnesses and the working dogs that
assist them.
3. Please Explain How the Proposed Policy Position Will Address the Issue
The proposed Resolution is intended to increase awareness that domestic and
international laws and policies that allow facility dogs to accompany victims/vulnerable
witnesses and provide for the care of these facility dogs will assure “meaningful access
to justice for all persons,” in accordance with ABA Goal no. 4.
4. Summary of Minority Views or Opposing Internal and/or External to the ABA which has
been Identified
None
10You can also read
