In Seattle, Washington, USA, Ellen O’Neill-Stephens, a retired deputy prosecuting attorney (who I am proud to call my cousin) noted with interest the introduction on 27 November 2017 of the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017. She received her bachelor’s degree in sociology and was a juvenile probation officer before entering law school.

The Courthouse Dogs Foundation and the development of its model in the US was cofounded by Ellen and Dr Celeste Walsen in 2008. Dr Walsen has a doctor of veterinary medicine degree and a BA in psychology.

Ellen’s son Seán and his service dog Jeeter were the inspiration for what was to become the Courthouse Dogs Foundation.

She first started bringing Jeeter to juvenile court in King County, Seattle, in 2003 on a part-time and unofficial basis. She saw first-hand how the dog’s presence relaxed everyone in the courtroom. Word of how he lessened tensions spread throughout the prosecutor’s office.

One day, Ellen was approached by a deputy prosecutor who relayed to her the difficulties he was having prosecuting a father on charges of first-degree rape of a child and first-degree child molestation of his twin daughters. The prosecutor commented: “The twins won’t talk to me.”

Ellen, Seán and Jeeter paid a visit to the girls, who instantly bonded with the dog. As a result, the prosecutor was able to interview the girls in the presence of Jeeter. However, when the twins saw their father in the courtroom where they were to testify against him, they both broke down and cried.

With permission from the judge, Ellen brought Jeeter into court. One of the girls was hesitant to describe where she was inappropriately touched by her father, but she did so by reference to Jeeter’s body parts.

The girls were interviewed some seven years later, when they were aged 16, by Christine Clarridge, a reporter from the Seattle Times for her article ‘Courthouse dogs calm victims’ fears about testifying’.

When asked about what they recalled about being molested and the subsequent court hearing, they immediately recalled a dog named Jeeter, and replied: “I remember him drinking out of the sink in the bathroom and thinking that was awesome,” while the other said: “I remember Jeeter slobbering on me.”

For their mother, that was the ultimate testament to the role King County’s first courthouse dog played in her daughters’ emotional recovery since their sexual abuse.

She said: “Their memories, which could have been so graphic, are limited. Jeeter gave the girls a chance to get over an ugly situation. Victims in every county in every state deserve the same opportunity.”

With the aid of Jeeter, a golden retriever-lab mix, the twins in 2004 became the first victims of crime in the US to testify at a trial with the aid of a facility dog.

The term ‘courthouse dogs’ was coined to describe dogs that assist legal professionals in the investigation and prosecution of crimes.

Facility dog

In the US, ‘facility dogs’ are a type of assistance dogs that have been trained by an assistance dog organisation, which is a member of Assistance Dogs International (ADI). ADI is a non-profit organisation that sets the highest standards for the training and placement of these dogs. It certifies that the dog and handler teams will not create a public hazard.

Facility dogs differ from service dogs in that they do not assist people with disabilities, and don’t have public access. Facility dogs are assigned to institutions rather than individuals. They assist professionals by improving the quality of their work.

In the legal system, such dogs are placed with professional handlers and work with victim advocates, forensic interviewers, law enforcement officers, and assistant district attorneys.

Each dog comes to its handler with about two years of training. The dogs live with their ‘owner’ handlers and accompany them to work each day.

In addition to the primary handler, there may be one or two others who are trained to work with and care for the dog when the primary handler is unavailable.

There are distinct differences between facility dogs and ‘pet therapy dogs’. The latter have usually gone through training with their owners to provide comfort to a variety of people.

Their use is not recommended by the Courthouse Dogs Foundation, since therapy dogs (normally registered with therapy dog organisations) require minimal training and little or no oversight of the dog/handler team.

Although pet-therapy dog owners are well-meaning, they can unknowingly become witnesses if a victim discloses information about a crime to them.

They may also become emotionally traumatised by being exposed to another person’s suffering and could inadvertently, through their actions, create grounds for a mistrial or an issue on appeal.

Providing services to vulnerable people involved in stressful legal proceedings is regarded as ‘mission-critical’ work, so only professionally trained dogs and handlers should be involved in this process.

The Courthouse Dogs website was launched in 2008 to set about informing members of the public and legal professionals about the benefits of courthouse facility dogs and their role in the legal system.

Training programmes are available for attorneys, child advocacy centres, and other legal professionals in order to develop a best-practice model throughout the US, and subsequently in Canada and Chile.

This led to the founding, in 2012, of the non-profit organisation, the Courthouse Dogs Foundation.

Dog fights

There have been challenges to the practice.

Mr Timothy Dye appealed his 2010 burglary conviction in King County Superior Court on the grounds that allowing a dog to sit with a disabled victim during the trial unfairly “presupposed to the jury the very victimhood of the complainant”.

The appeals court ruled unanimously that the dog’s temporary presence did not create a bias. “It’s a loaded situation,” said attorney Jan Trasen, who handled Dye’s appeal.

“The defendant is supposed to have a presumption of innocence, and the jury is supposed to reserve judgment, but then you have an alleged victim testifying with the most beautiful, well-trained dog you have ever seen.”

'There have been challenges to the practice

However, Ellen O’Neill-Stephens said that the court ruling came as no surprise. Her view is that a correctly trained facility dog is legally neutral.

She further holds that the dog does not take sides and provides unconditional love and acceptance to anyone who wants it. In addition, facility dogs are trained to lie quietly on the floor of the witness box and are out of sight of the jury.

Since then, ten appellate courts in the US have reviewed this issue, and all have affirmed the practice once certain conditions are met.

Testament to the success of the Courthouse Dogs model is the fact that there are now over 180 courthouse facility dogs working in the United States, Canada and Chile.

Six states across the US have enacted legislation that permits facility dogs to provide this accommodation to testifying witnesses under certain circumstances.

Most recently, on 7 February 2018, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (a US national association dedicated to supporting and enhancing prosecutors in their efforts to create safer communities) resolved to support the use of facility dogs as a model practice for providing quiet companionship to vulnerable individuals during the investigation and prosecution of crimes and other stressful legal proceedings.

Paws for thought

The groundbreaking contribution of the Courthouse Dogs Foundation has been recognised by the following awards:

• Finalist in the competition for the ‘Successful Innovating Justice Award’ at the Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law in 2013 ,
• ‘Victims’ Rights Partnership Award’ from the National Crime Victim Law Institute in the US in 2014. and
• The Paul H Chapman Award 2017 for ‘Significant Contribution to the Improvement of Justice in America’.

Courthouse dogs provide comfort and reassurance to children and vulnerable victims, allowing them to open up about what happened to them and give evidence at trial.

The mere presence of the dogs, which are trained to unobtrusively interact with humans, can put frightened people at ease and help allay the reluctance some children and victims experience when discussing traumatic experiences (see panel).

In 2011, Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association (which passed a resolution supporting the use of court facility dogs), commented: “If a victim or witness shuts down on the witness stand, the system has failed everyone".