Dog Used to Convict Man Accused of Child Sexual Abuse

Yesterday, The New York Times reported that a prosecutor in New York State used a dog to help convict a man accused of sexually abusing his daughter. The dog was used to comfort the complainant during her testimony. For example, “[a]t least once when the teenager hesitated . . . the dog rose and seemed to push the girl gently with her nose.” The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a term of incarceration of 25 years to life. The theory behind the use of the dog is that victims of child sexual abuse need help and encouragement during their testimony. The problem with that reasoning is that it presupposes that the allegations are true, which is obviously inconsistent with the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence. The use of the dog raises many complex issues. How did the behavior of the dog influence the jury’s interpretation of the testimony of the complainant? Are some dogs better trained to buttress the testimony of complainants? What is the scope of the permissible behavior of the dog during the testimony of the complainant? This case is an excellent example of how the criminal justice system is tilted in favor of obtaining convictions, especially in child sexual abuse cases. It will be interesting to see how the claim related to the use of the dog in this case is resolved on appeal.