California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gonzales, 218 Cal.App.3d 403, 267 Cal.Rptr. 138 (Cal. App. 1990):
"Unlike accomplice testimony, dog tracking evidence is not inherently suspect because of a self-interested source. [Citation.] The notion that such evidence is of slight probative value or must be viewed with caution stems at least in part from fear that a jury will be in awe of the animal's apparent powers and will give the evidence too much weight. [Citation.] In light of the stringent foundational requirements which must be met before such evidence is admissible at all, however, we see no reason to categorize that evidence thereafter as inferior or untrustworthy, and instruct that it be given less weight than other evidence.... [W]hat the law in this state actually requires is not that dog trailing evidence be viewed with caution, but that it be treated as any other evidence, with its weight left to the trier of fact." (People v. Malgren, supra, 139 Cal.App.3d at pp. 241-242, 188 Cal.Rptr. 569, emphasis in original.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.