Judge declares mistrial after courthouse therapy dog wanders into room with jurors. Here's why

[mahatmakanejeeves]

News

Judge declares mistrial after courthouse therapy dog wanders into room with jurors. Here’s why

Published: Mar. 06, 2026, 7:06 p.m.
By John Beauge | Special to PennLive

LOCK HAVEN—A dog on Friday caused a mistrial in the criminal trial of a Dauphin County man accused of killing a dog owned by neighbors at his hunting cabin.

Judge Michael F. Salisbury declared the mistrial Friday after the courthouse therapy dog, a black lab, inadvertently got into room where jurors in the trial of Robert W. Wallish III were gathering following their lunch break. ... The Hummelstown man is charged with killing a neighbor’s yellow-mix lab in 2024 while staying at his Clinton County cabin.

The therapy dog named Clark was in the courthouse Friday with his probation office handler. ... Its leash was dropped and it went into the jury room where it mingled with and was petted by jurors.

Upon being told of what occurred, Salisbury called defense attorney Sarah Marie Lockwood and District Attorney David Strouse into his chambers to discuss an “issue of concern.” ... After briefing Wallish, Lockwood moved for a mistrial. Strouse had asked for a polling of the jurors and suggested a curative instruction could avoid a mistrial.

{snip}

[marble falls]

1. I get it. It's a darn shame, but it is good decision.

[hlthe2b]

2. Yeah, but it would not have changed my (or I'd bet most juror's) already strong feeling

about the defendant and the crime for which he was indicted assuming the evidence was clear. I'd be ready to string this a'hole up before I ever stepped in the jury room (and that is from a staunch death penalty opponent).

Still, avoiding an unnecessary overturn on appeal matters...

[marble falls]

3. That's you and me. I've been on juries and am shocked by how many got on panels without the ability to ignore ...

... anything not in evidence.

Would it be alright to bring a child into a jury room on a trial about child abuse even accidentally?

[hlthe2b]

4. I'm saying the entrenched feelings about animal abuse (or your later example of child abuse)

mean that marching a dog in (or even a child) isn't likely in these two cases to change opinions because they are so firmly baked in. The judge is doing this to avoid reversible error on appeal, but the fact is that the odds are good that short of the worst prosecutor case presented ever, that the jury had decision made before the dog ever entered the deliberation room.

I agree that no all can ignore what is not in evidence, but, I don't think that is the actual issue here. Rather pro-animal or pro-child bias that is impossible to remove is going to be present. Still, I don't think it would affect a SOLID case that actually proves the person to have been falsely charged.