V. T. —who was convicted of predatory sexual assault and of endangering the welfare of his own child—objected to the fact that his daughter was able to testify at his criminal trial with a "comfort dog" at her side.
T. thought that the use of the animal was prejudicial because it conveyed that the youngster was "under stress," and made her more sympathetic to the jury.
But after its review of the record, the Appellate Division, Second Department, thought no error had been committed and concluded that the use of a live animal hadn't impaired T.'s right to a fair trial.
(Every dog has its day?)
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. T.