Bill to let trained facility dogs assist witnesses in Nevada courts prompts debate over jury bias and safeguards

CARSON CITY — The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony May 14 on Assembly Bill 302, which would create a statutory framework allowing certified facility dogs to accompany and support certain witnesses during court proceedings if a judge finds the dog would assist the witness and would not prejudice the proceeding.

Lieutenant Michael Browett of the Reno Police Department, who has worked with a facility dog, presented the bill and said it would standardize judicial discretion, establish motion and documentary requirements, require accreditation and handler certification, and permit counties and municipalities to allow dogs into courthouses while providing liability protections when certain insurance requirements are met.

How the bill would work

Under the amended text presented, a party seeking to use a facility dog must file a motion and present clear and convincing evidence that the dog will assist the witness’s testimony. Courts may consider factors including the witness’s age and disability status, the potential impact on the proceeding, and the dog organization’s accreditation (the bill cites Assistance Dogs International or an equivalent accrediting body). Judges would be required to issue written findings when they grant or deny a motion and to use measures to minimize distraction to the jury, including keeping the dog out of the jury’s view when practicable and allowing cautionary jury instructions.

Supporters’ arguments and evidence

Browett and University of Nevada, Reno researcher Monica Miller described studies showing reduced stress and improved interview performance when trained dogs are present during forensic interviews and educational settings. Browett noted the dogs used in professional programs undergo months of selective breeding, socialization and training; handlers receive training and accredited organizations provide ongoing support. He further noted existing case law in other states has generally allowed carefully managed use of facility dogs.

Judicial stakeholders and law-enforcement presenters — including Anna Bonillas (representing Nevada judges of limited jurisdiction), Andre Smozes (Eighth Judicial District Court) and John McCormick (Supreme Court staff) — said they supported the reprint presented after working with the bill sponsor and stakeholders, but the judges raised separation-of-powers concerns about one proposed amendment and urged preservation of judicial discretion.

Opposition and concerns

Public defenders and defense counsel expressed consistent concern about jury bias. Angela Knott of the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office and Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office urged the committee to prohibit facility dogs from criminal jury trials, arguing that the dog’s presence signals victimhood and could unfairly sway jurors despite judicial instructions. They noted litigation in other jurisdictions and said additional statutory guardrails are needed to avoid adding a new ground for appeal or creating uneven access.

Research and case law cited

Witnesses cited empirical studies and appellate decisions from other states. The committee heard references to People v. Chenault (Michigan), State v. Dye (Washington) and other examples where appellate courts weighed claims that a courtroom accommodation prejudiced defendants. Research presented by UNR’s Miller included experimental work that — when designed to maximize the chance of bias — did not produce consistent juror bias attributable to facility dogs; one study showed a teddy bear produced more bias than a trained dog. Browett emphasized that the manner of presentation and judicial mitigation steps matter in outcomes.

Practical details and costs

The bill would not require courts to provide dogs; rather, government entities or victim-service organizations would maintain dogs and handlers and make them available. Municipalities and counties would be granted limited immunity from liability for injury or loss caused by a facility dog, and the bill as presented would require handlers and organizations to maintain liability insurance (witnesses discussed $500,000 as a floor and referenced an $11 million policy held by one national organization).

Committee reaction and next steps

Committee members asked detailed procedural and implementation questions, including how dogs are trained, whether a facility dog could become a permanent service dog for an individual, how scarce the resource is statewide (witnesses said only a handful of certified dogs currently work in Nevada), and whether preliminary non-jury hearings should be used as stepping stones before allowing courtroom use in jury trials.

The bill’s authors and supporters urged that judges retain discretion and that safeguards — accreditation, handler certification, written findings and jury instructions — would reduce the risk of prejudice. Opponents urged a statutory bar on use in criminal jury trials or additional constraints. The committee did not vote on AB302 at the conclusion of testimony.