It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In her ruling regarding Reggie last year, Gilliard said she sought to strike a balance between the constitutional right of the defendant to get a fair trial and the disabled accuser's need for support.
Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by g146541
I personally don't think they are using the companion dog's for a court win; they are using the dog's to give moral support to the victims of sexual assault; they help to give the people (victims) courage and comfort in a time of deepened stress when having to face their attacker in a courtroom.
I am all for these companion dogs in the courtroom; they help the victims.
Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by g146541
In answer to your question; I am really undecided at this point and time.
Do you think they should have an animal for comfort too? (the person being prosecuted) that is.