If criminal charges were brought against your dog, what rights does he have?
On December 21, 1921, in San Francisco, an Airedale named Dormie found himself the defendant in the courtroom of his honorable Judge Lile T Jacks.  Dormie, it seems, had allegedly murdered 14 cats, however, this particular trial was for the death of “Sunbeam”, a Persian-Angora cat owned by Marjorie Ingal.  Because San Francisco had an ordinance that stated if a dog is declared dangerous or vicious, then the dog and his master share the guilt.  An Assistant District Attorney named John Orcutt was the prosecutor in the case and he had already demanded the death penalty for Dormie.
Dormie’s owner, Eaton McMillan, was a wealthy automobile dealer and many envied him for his lifestyle which was suspicioned as the motivator for the charge brought against his dog.  McMillan’s defense was, since he got Dormie a license and, at the time, was allowed to run free, he should not be held responsible for the dog’s cat-killing instincts.  When McMillan was told Dormie was facing the death penalty for cat-slaughter under the law, he hired an attorney for Dormie named James F Brennan.  Brennen completely surprised the prosecution by demanding a jury trial who had not expected such a serious turn for the proceedings.
The proceedings during the trial seemed a farce on occasion, especially when Brennan called an Airedale named Rowdy, who was the brother of the current President Warren G Harding’s pet named Laddie, as a character witness to show that Airedales do not harbor an instinctive hatred for cats. The case was also causing a stir outside of the courtroom as well.  Many of the people in Dormie’s neighborhood considered him to be a friendly pet and the children gathered together their pennies and contributed them to Dormie’s defense fund; many sending him tidbits and fine bones during his incarceration to keep him happy.
When all was said and done, the trial ended in a hung jury, with 11 jurors voting for acquittal and one holding out for the death penalty.  On December 28, 1921, the defense motioned for dismissal which Judge Jacks not only grated but declared the San Francisco ordinance contrary to the Constitution of the State of California, in that it violates the inherent rights of dogs – all dogs.  According to the law at the time, a licensed dog had the right to roam free and unlicensed domestic animals, such as cats, do not have that freedom, therefore, if a wondering cat should come upon a free-roaming dog, the outcome of such a meeting is solely the cat’s responsibility.
This precedent setting case established a number of rights for dogs.  A dog can have a trial by jury.  They can demand to be identified as the specific dog in a designated violation.  The constitutionality of an ordinance which jeopardizes a dog’s life can be attacked on behalf of the dog.  A dog can claim discrimination, pleading there is one law for a rich man’s dog and a total other law if the dog belongs to a poor man.  When testifying to his general reputation and temperament, a dog can call on character witnesses.  A dog can claim that cats have no rights under the law as they are not licensed and must be kept in an enclosure.
Times and attitudes have changed since 1921 and laws pertaining to dogs vary from one jurisdiction to another but one can’t help but wonder if a trial like this one were to occur today, would the outcome of Dormie’s trial invoke precedence for determining the legal rights for dogs?