-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JONATHON WILLIAM-DURAND NEUHARD,

Defendant. 

 /

Case No. 15-cr-20425 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DAVID R. GRAND

ORDER DENYING GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO ALLOW CANINE 

ADVOCATE TO ACCOMPANY MINOR VICTIMS AT TRIAL [99], DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ORDER FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF NON-PUBLIC 

COURT FILES [103], DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE 

INFLATABLE PLASTIC DOLL [106], AND ADJOURNING DECISION ON DEFENDANT’S 

MOTIONS TO AMEND/CORRECT WITNESS LIST [108, 110] 

On March 13, 2016, the Court held a hearing to resolve five outstanding 

motions prior to the beginning of trial. The Court indicated its rulings on the record 

during the hearing, and noted this short order would follow to further explain the 

Court’s rulings. 

A. Government’s Motion in Limine as to Use of a Canine Advocate 

On February 22, 2017, the Government filed a motion seeking to allow a 

canine advocate to accompany the minor victims while they testified at trial. Dkt. 

No. 99. At the hearing on March 13, 2017, the Court denied the Government’s 

motion. 

2:15-cr-20425-GAD-DRG Doc # 111 Filed 03/14/17 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 549
-2- 

As child victims of sexual abuse, MV-1 and MV-2 may properly seek 

protections and rights offered by 18 U.S.C. § 3509. The section, titled “Child 

Victims’ and Child Witnesses’ Rights,” offers various tools to lessen the potential 

harm a child may suffer while testifying at trial. Id. A child’s testimony may be 

taken by a two-way closed circuit television, 18 U.S.C. § 3509(b)(1), or by video 

deposition prior to trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3509(b)(2). The Court may order that the 

courtroom be closed to all persons, including members of the press, who do not 

have a direct interest in the case if requiring the child to testify in open court would 

cause substantial psychological harm to the child or would result in the child’s 

inability to effectively communicate. 18 U.S.C. § 3509(e). Most analogous to the 

present motion is that a child testifying has the right to be accompanied by an adult 

attendant to provide emotional support to the child. 18 U.S.C. § 3509(i). The Court 

may allow the adult attendant to remain in close physical proximity or in physical 

contact with the child while she testifies. Id. The attendant may not answer 

questions directed to the child or otherwise prompt the child. Id. Where an adult 

attendant accompanies a child witness during trial testimony or deposition, the 

image of the attendant is to be recorded on videotape. Id. 

Section 3509 does not provide for a support animal to accompany a child in 

addition to the adult attendant. The Government has not provided any precedent 

where another federal court has allowed a support animal to accompany a witness 

2:15-cr-20425-GAD-DRG Doc # 111 Filed 03/14/17 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 550
-3- 

at trial. Further, MV-1 and MV-2 have been able to previously testify—albeit in a 

closed courtroom during preliminary examination—without assistance. The 

Government has not pled facts that indicate that MV-1 and MV-2 will be unable to 

testify in the absence of a support animal. 

This Court has previously analyzed this issue in the context of an adult 

witness and noted the strong support in state courts for allowing a support animal. 

See United States v. Gardner, No. 16-CR-20135, 2016 WL 5404207 at *7–8 (E.D. 

Mich. Sept. 28, 2016) (collecting cases where support dogs have been allowed to 

accompany witnesses in criminal trials). Although the facts here are more 

persuasive than those in Gardner, the Government has not shown that a support 

animal is supported by statute or federal case law. Accordingly, the Government’s 

motion is denied. 

Although the Court will not allow a support animal to be present in the 

courtroom during the minor victims’ testimonies in front of the jury, the 

Government may bring the canine into the building to assist the witnesses before 

their testimony, during breaks, and after their testimony has concluded. The canine 

may be present in the hallway outside of the courtroom or in the attorney 

conference room being used by the Government. 

2:15-cr-20425-GAD-DRG Doc # 111 Filed 03/14/17 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 551
-4- 

B. Defendant’s Motion for Order for In Camera Inspection of Court Files 

On March 7, 2017, Defendant filed a motion seeking a court order for in 

camera inspection of non-public court files. Dkt. No. 103. At the hearing on March 

13, 2017, the Court denied Defendant’s motion. 

The Government objected to Defendant’s request for the non-public court 

files, and to any admission of the personal protection order or the contents therein. 

Dkt. No. 105. Based on review of the filings and oral argument, Defendant has not 

established that the court files, the protection order, or the allegations of abuse or 

drug use by non-victims in the years prior to the crimes charged are relevant. See

FED. R. EVID. 401. Furthermore, the probative value of these matters is 

substantially outweighed by their prejudicial nature. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thus, 

the Court denies Defendant’s motion as to the court files, personal protection 

order, and the allegations made within that order. 

C. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Inflatable Plastic Doll 

On March 10, 2017, Defendant filed a motion seeking to exclude admission 

of an inflatable plastic doll into evidence during trial. Dkt. No. 108. At the hearing 

on March 13, 2017, the Court denied Defendant’s motion. 

 The Government argues that the inflatable doll is admissible because erotica 

and adult toys relating to sexual offenses against children indicate motive, intent, 

2:15-cr-20425-GAD-DRG Doc # 111 Filed 03/14/17 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 552
-5- 

and lack of mistake as to a sexual interest in children. See Dkt. No. 109. Here, the 

inflatable doll is argued to be “child-sized,” lacking in pubic hair or coloring 

thereof in the genital area, and having “breast buds” of a developing child. See id. 

at 2. 

 Based on the parties’ oral argument and pleadings, the Court finds that the 

doll is admissible because the charges are sexual in nature. The Government cited 

authority in support of its argument, while the Defendant did not. Accordingly, 

because of the serious relevance and probative value of the doll exceeds its 

prejudicial effect, the Court denies Defendant’s motion. 

D. Defendant’s Motions to Amend/Correct His Witness Lists 

On March 11 and 12, 2017, Defendant filed two motions seeking to 

amend/correct his witness list to include two new witnesses. Dkt. Nos. 108, 110. 

As discussed at the March 13, 2017 hearing, the Court will postpone ruling on 

Defendant’s new witnesses until after the Government closes its case at trial. At 

that point, the relevancy of the proposed witness testimony will be assessed and the 

Government can determine if it needs further witnesses to rebut the potential 

defense witnesses’ testimonies. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government’s Motion in Limine to 

Allow Canine Advocate to Accompany Minor Victims at Trial [99] is DENIED. 

2:15-cr-20425-GAD-DRG Doc # 111 Filed 03/14/17 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 553
-6- 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Order for In 

Camera Inspection of Non-Public Court Files [103] is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion in Limine to

Exclude Inflatable Plastic Doll [106] is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a ruling on Defendant’s Motions to 

Amend/Correct Witness List [108, 110] is ADJOURNED to the close of the 

Government’s case in chief. 

Dated: March 14, 2017 

 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

 HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Court Judge 

2:15-cr-20425-GAD-DRG Doc # 111 Filed 03/14/17 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 554