BRAIN LESSONS: A DOG IS A JUROR’S BEST FRIEND
by Grant Rost
In honor of national Adopt-A-Dog and Adopt-a-Shelter-Dog month, we will look at an interesting study on drug-dog evidence and mock-juror decision making, examining whether jurors would credit the alert of a drug-sniffing dog as a *sufficient condition* for guilt in a trafficking case. The researchers in this study tested how much credit mock jurors would give to the alert of a drug-sniffing dog in a drug-trafficking case where no drugs were ever discovered and the only evidence of their presence was testimony that a drug-sniffing dog had alerted on the defendant’s automobile. Lisa Lit et al., *Perceived infallibility of detection dog
evidence: implications for juror decision-making* (2019), *available at*
https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2018.1561450. For just a word on the legal backdrop of this kind of evidence, the United States Supreme Court has approved of the admissibility of drug-dog alerts—though admissibility of that evidence is not without qualification. *Florida v. Harris* 568
U.S. 237 (2013).
The researchers provided the subjects with a summary of testimony showing that a drug-sniffing dog alerted on the defendant’s car, though no drugs were ever found. The dog’s alert was used to gain a warrant for defendant’s house where police found only a large sum of
stashed money. Subjects were asked, among a host of other questions, whether the defendant was guilty of drug trafficking, how confident they were in their verdict, and how confident they were that a drug-dog alert indicated the presence of drugs. Lit, et al, *supra *at 194.
Though a majority of the mock-jurors issued a not guilty verdict, 33.5% of the 554 participants voted to convict the defendant for drug trafficking even though no drugs were ever found in the defendant’s car or house. *Id. *Furthermore, “Participants assigning a guilty verdict
were more likely to indicate high levels of confidence in their verdict (70% or higher) than those assigning a verdict of not guilty [statistics omitted].” *Id. *at 197. 80% of all participants either agreed or strongly agreed that a drug-dog’s alert at a location where no drugs were found simply meant that drugs were present at some point, even though such alerts could result from dog or handler errors. *Id. *at 195, 197. If the reader has pondered the so-called “halo effect” before—the human tendency to like or dislike, credit or discredit a person based on who they are or
how they are perceived—it is likely you have never considered any powers a dog’s halo might have.
You may or may not know that the origin of the famous phrase “a dog is a man’s best friend” is traced back to a rather rousing closing argument offered up by George Vest in a small Missouri courtroom in 1870. Vest’s soaring oratory on the plaintiff’s deceased dog is worth a trial
lawyer’s read. Though Vest says that dogs are faithful, unselfish, and noble, we humans appear willing to also credit them with honesty, accuracy, and forensic reliability.
Posted in Brain Lessons,