Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases

We presented participants with syndromal, witness credibility, or anatomically detailed doll evidence to determine (a) whether these different types of expert evidence exert differential influence on participants' judgments and (b) whether the influence of this evidence could be better explained by the relative scientific status or the probabilistic qualities of the research presented. Additionally, we investigated whether a strong or weak cross-examination of the expert would be more successful in discrediting the information provided in the expert's testimony. Findings suggest that participants are less influenced by expert testimony based on probability data (i.e., syndromal evidence) than by expert testimony based on case history data (i.e., credibility of anatomically detailed doll evidence). Participant responses did not differ as a function of the strength of the cross-examination of the expert. As expected, women were more likely to respond in a pro-prosecution direction than were men. Implications for the use of expert evidence in child sexual abuse cases are discussed.     

Medical Evidence and Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse

Expert medical testimony in child sexual abuse cases can be critical to the outcome of a legal case. This article will review the development of the medical knowledge and clinical expertise in child sexual abuse. Since the passage of mandatory child abuse reporting laws, the forensic medical examination of a child for evidence of sexual abuse has become standard. Until recently, many myths regarding female genital anatomy existed but were based primarily on dogma and lack of empirical research. Over the past 25 years, many research studies and accumulating clinical evidence have expanded medical knowledge and debunked old myths. Physical evidence, even in cases of alleged genital or anal penetration is rare. Sexually transmitted infections are also uncommon and often require medical interpretation as to their significance in a prepubertal child. Specialized medical knowledge, training, and clinical expertise have developed in order to evaluate children presenting with allegations of sexual abuse. Such medical expertise provides invaluable service to courts. We review criteria for evaluating such expertise in light of current medical practice.     

Expert Testimony Regarding Child Witnesses: Does It Sensitize Jurors to Forensic Interview Quality?

Does expert testimony on forensic interviews with children help adults distinguish between poorly conducted and well-conducted interviews? This study evaluates the effects of social framework expert testimony regarding child witnesses in a case involving allegations of child sexual abuse. A 2 (Expert Testimony: present or absent) × 3 (Child Forensic Interview Quality: poor, typical, or good) × 2 (Child’s Age: 4- or 10-year-old) factorial design was used to examine whether expert testimony is prejudicial or beneficial to jurors (N = 463). The results revealed that, without expert testimony, mock jurors did not consider the forensic interview quality when reaching a verdict. However, with expert testimony, mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts if the interview quality was good versus poor. Further expert testimony increased mock jurors’ knowledge about child witnesses. These findings suggest that expert testimony related to the impact of interview techniques on the reliability of children’s reports may assist fact-finders in evaluating child abuse cases.     

Assessing the risk of recidivism in physicians with histories of sexual misconduct

Physicians who engage in sexual conduct with patients usually cause serious harm and have a high rate of recidivism. Although offending physicians may lose their privilege to practice, they have the right to appeal for restoration of the license. Yet medical licensing board members do not currently have any clear standards by which to predict whether a given physician is likely to abuse again. Using New York as a paradigm, this paper offers practical, clinically based guidelines for assessing the risk of restoring an offending physician's license. These guidelines are derived from psychoanalytic theories of character, the insights of therapists who have worked with abusive physicians, and the psychiatric model of assessing dangerousness. Recognizing character patterns and psychological vulnerabilities of physicians with histories of sexual misconduct will help board members identify those who are at high risk of abusing again if their licenses are restored.     

The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial

Mock jurors viewed a videotape of a simulated child sexual abuse trial and then deliberated to a unanimous verdict. The complainant was described as either a 13- or 17-year-old female child. Jurors voted to convict more often when the younger complainant was seen, and the younger complainant was rated as more credible than the older complainant. Female jurors voted the defendant guilty more often and rated the complainant as being more credible than male jurors. Jurors voted to convict more often and rated the defendant as less credible when expert psychological testimony was specific to the case than when they were presented with either general expert testimony or no expert testimony. Jurors who saw a psychological expert testify became less accepting of child sexual abuse misconceptions than those in the no expert control condition. The implications of these findings are discussed.Millbrook Correctional Centre     

论鉴定结论的证据能力

鉴定证据规则在本质上是一套规范鉴定结论证据能力的规则，为此，我们需要构建完善的证据能力规则和排除规则来规范鉴定人出庭问题，辩护方鉴定结论的使用问题。并要完善相关的其它制度。     

Educating Jurors about Forensic Evidence: Using an Expert Witness and Judicial Instructions to Mitigate the Impact of Invalid Forensic Science Testimony

Invalid expert witness testimony that overstated the precision and accuracy of forensic science procedures has been highlighted as a common factor in many wrongful conviction cases. This study assessed the ability of an opposing expert witness and judicial instructions to mitigate the impact of invalid forensic science testimony. Participants (N = 155) acted as mock jurors in a sexual assault trial that contained both invalid forensic testimony regarding hair comparison evidence, and countering testimony from either a defense expert witness or judicial instructions. Results showed that the defense expert witness was successful in educating jurors regarding limitations in the initial expert's conclusions, leading to a greater number of not-guilty verdicts. The judicial instructions were shown to have no impact on verdict decisions. These findings suggest that providing opposing expert witnesses may be an effective safeguard against invalid forensic testimony in criminal trials.     

Psychiatric aspects of sexual abuse

Sexual abuse of children and adolescents has become an increasingly publicized phenomenon. Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are often called upon to evaluate and treat children and adolescents who may have been sexually abused, to provide counseling or treatment to the families of such children, and to provide reports and testimony for proceedings about such cases in the child protection system, the criminal justice system, and in custody disputes. Clarity regarding the medical, psychiatric, and legal aspects of sexual abuse is essential in carrying out such professional activities and in evaluating and formulating research on sexual abuse. In this paper current knowledge regarding these aspects of sexual abuse is summarized, and the role of psychiatrists in clinical and forensic work involving allegations of sexual abuse is discussed.     

Do Jurors “Know” What Isn’t So About Child Witnesses?

Are expert witnesses needed in child sexual abuse cases to educate jurors about children’s memory, suggestibility, and reactions to abuse, or do jurors already know what such experts could tell them? To cast light on this question, we surveyed jurors and jury-eligible college students and compared their beliefs with what is known via scientific research regarding children’s memory and ability to testify, reactions to interrogation, and reactions to sexual abuse. We also asked participants to infer results of four widely cited studies of children’s suggestibility. Participants’ beliefs were consistent with findings from research on some issues (e.g., that children can be led to claim that false events occurred) but diverged from the scientific consensus on other issues (e.g., whether children can remember painful events in infancy). Similarly, participants sometimes overestimated and sometimes underestimated the level of suggestibility observed in empirical studies. Individual differences in accuracy were related to participants’ gender, education and ethnicity, and there was considerable disagreement among participants on many questions. Implications of findings for the admissibility of expert testimony in child abuse cases are discussed.     

The case of two trials: Father-son incest

Although efforts for investigating and prosecuting child abuse cases have increased little attention has been paid to juror response to child testimony. This paper, developed as part of a pilot study to test a questionnaire for polling jurors' opinions in child sexual abuse cases, analyzes a case in which there was a reversal of outcome at retrial. Poll results of the jurors' opinions suggest the need for testimony from law enforcement and child sexual abuse experts to explain children's perception, memory, and recall of a reported experience.     

Qualifying the psychiatrist as a lay witness: a reaction to the American Psychiatric Association petition in Barefoot v. Estelle

Organized psychiatry has recently begun to define limits to expert testimony. The American Psychiatric Association filed an amicus brief in the case of Barefoot v. Estelle urging legal curtailment of psychiatric testimony as to future dangerousness and prohibition on Constitutional grounds of expert psychiatric testimony solely based on hypothetical data. The Supreme Court refused relief on both questions. Psychiatric testimony to ultimate questions at law is limited by the inherent contextual variables of psychiatric clinical and experimental knowledge and practice. A forensic science model for psychiatric participation with explicit psychiatrically defined limitations is proposed using competence to stand trial as an example.     

On the assessment of children in suspected child sexual abuse in light of Daubert and Frye: limitations of profiles and interviews as scientifically grounded evidence

Practice with children and families entails the higher probability of encountering forensic issues of child sexual abuse (CSA) assessments for which relatively few psychologists, allied mental health and legal practitioners are sufficiently well equipped. The current paper reviews some of the key psycholegal issues bearing on the assessment of suspected CSA in the contexts of: (a) recent psycholegal precedence and common law rules of reliability and admissibility of CSA profile evidence; (b) the empirical problems with CSA syndromes; and (c) the problems with children's interviews as evidence, and suggestions for valid interviewing guidelines supporting free recall. These psycholegal issues are presented in terms of the Frye standard for expert testimony and the Federal Rules of Evidence, with recent American and Canadian case illustrations, such as Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Hadden v. State of Florida (1997), Bighead v. The United States of America (1997), Diocese of Winona v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co. (1994), and R. v. Simpson (1996).     

The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?

Flawed expert scientific testimony has compromised truth finding in American litigation, including in medical malpractice and in product liability cases. The Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court in Daubert and other cases have established standards for testimony that include reliability and relevance, and established judges as gatekeepers. However, because of lack of understanding of scientific issues, judges have problems with this role, and juries have difficulties with scientific evidence. Professionals and the judiciary have made some advances, but a better system involving the court's use of neutral experts and a mechanism to hold experts accountable for improprieties is needed.     

Sexual abuse by educators: a comparison between male and female teachers who sexually abuse students

ABSTRACT

The study aimed to identify the differences in case characteristics and typologies of female and male teachers who perpetrated sexual abuse on students. Decisions of sexual misconduct reports in England from June 2006 to December 2016 were used. Quantitative and qualitative content analysis was conducted on 20 cases of male and female teacher sexual misconduct (N?=?40). Regarding case characteristics, most were secondary school or college teachers, mid-career, with victims of the opposite sex. For differences, male teachers were older and more likely to have: perpetrated more severe and lengthier sexual abuse and previously received warnings. Interestingly, females and males were similar across the preliminary typology: minimisers and deniers; poor mental health or stressors; and young, early career. However, a fourth group of females emerged: “I was overpowered”. The study furthers the understanding of sexual misconduct by teachers and should assist in the development of policies, guidelines, and legislation around prevention.     

The medical review officer: a potential role for the medical examiner

Drug use in the workplace is a problem, both in terms of public health and expense. Workplace drug testing programs serve as deterrents to drug use. Model programs, such as that of the Department of Transportation, use urine screening and are federally regulated or follow federal standards. An essential participant in this process is the medical review officer (MRO), a licensed physician who interprets the laboratory results generated from a workplace drug testing program. As a result of their training and experience with toxicology, collection of evidence, testimony, and recognition of the physical signs of drug abuse, medical examiners and forensic pathologists are well suited to serve as MROs. Recent regulations require the completion of training courses and MRO certification as prerequisites for participation in federal drug testing programs. Several courses are available to train physicians to participate as MROs.     

Is the Expert Admissibility Game Fixed?: Judicial Gatekeeping of Fire and Arson Evidence

Anecdotal evidence claims that in criminal cases, trial judges admit the prosecution's expert witnesses more readily than the defendants', and in civil cases the reverse is true; judges exclude plaintiffs' experts more often than civil defendants' experts. This occurs despite the fact that, with few exceptions, the same rules of admissibility apply to all parties and, in most jurisdictions, across criminal and civil cases. This article empirically tests this differential by reviewing judicial decisions to admit or exclude evidence holding the type of expert testimony constant, fire and arson evidence, across criminal and civil cases in the United States. The study examines the admissibility of fire and arson investigation experts in criminal and civil cases across all legal parties in fifty‐seven federal and state opinions in the United States. The findings offer empirical support of a bias in criminal cases and in civil cases which present expert witnesses at trial, and is less pronounced, but still evident, on appeal. Specifically, the role of the party that offers the evidence has a profound effect on whether arson evidence is admitted, even when factors around the judge's political affiliation, attorney experience, expert qualifications, and rules of evidence are taken into account.     

Expert Testimony of the Battered Person Syndrome, Defendant Gender, and Sexual Orientation in a Case of Duress: Evaluating Legal Decisions

The current study examined the utility of expert testimony of the battered person syndrome (BPS) in a case of duress and the extent to which defendant gender, defendant sexual orientation, and participant gender influence mock jury decisions in a case of duress. Participants (N?=?413) read a scenario based on U.S. v. Dixon (2006) and answered questions assessing verdict, guilt, sentence length, duress legal elements, and attributes typically ascribed to victims of abuse. Results showed heterosexual female defendants were assigned the lowest sentences and met more of the legal elements of duress (i.e., were coerced, more likely to be believed, and purchased a gun to prevent harm) and attributes (i.e., experienced severe abuse, learned helplessness) compared to other defendants. When mock jurors received expert testimony, they provided lower rates of guilt and sentencing for defendants. Results also showed the inclusion of BPS expert testimony increased ratings for many of the legal elements of duress and attributes typically associated with intimate partner violence. In addition, results suggested that while heterosexual female defendants are more likely to be believed in a case of duress, expert testimony of BPS is helpful to all defendants. Limitations and future directions for research and practice are discussed.     

Chapter 2: The Legal Position and Organizational Forms of Forensic Psychiatric Expert Examination

The practical task of forensic psychiatry, which is one of the subdivisions of psychiatry, is to give an expert evaluation, on assignment from investigatory agencies and courts, and to devise and recommend measures for the prevention of socially dangerous acts by the mentally ill. Forensic psychiatric expert examination, like forensic medical, criminal, or any other type of expert examination, aids agencies of justice in establishing the facts in a case. Forensic psychiatric expert examination is called upon to assist the investigator and the court in determining whether an individual is a criminal or a legally irresponsible, mentally ill person; whether a person sentenced to a prison term should, because of mental illness, be released before his time is served; whether the investigator and the court may pursue the interrogation of a witness or victim with mental disorders, and whether the testimony of such persons may be used as court evidence. Such an expert examination is necessary in a civil suit in deciding the question of an individual's competence.