Prof. Colin Miller, The Bloodhound Gang: Detroit Free Press Article Addresses Admissibility Of Bloodhound Tracking Evidence, EvidenceProf Blog, 19 February 2009. Professor Miller notes the majority rule that courts generally admit evidence that bloodhounds tracked down a defendant. The minority rule is that such evidence is per se inadmissible because:
(1) the actions of the bloodhounds are unreliable;
(2) the evidence
constitutes hearsay;
(3) the defendant is deprived of his
constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him;
(4) the
defendant should not be placed in jeopardy by the actions of an animal;
(5) a defendant cannot cross-examine the dogs; and
(6) a jury might be
awed by such testimony and give it much greater weight and importance than warranted."
(2) the evidence
constitutes hearsay;
(3) the defendant is deprived of his
constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him;
(4) the
defendant should not be placed in jeopardy by the actions of an animal;
(5) a defendant cannot cross-examine the dogs; and
(6) a jury might be
awed by such testimony and give it much greater weight and importance than warranted."
Hah, tell that to Paul Newman.