Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Cases (From Papers From a National Conference on Legal Reforms in Child Sexual Abuse Cases, March 1985, Josephine Bulkley, ed. -- See NCJ-107173)

• NCJ Number: 107183
• Author(s): R J Roe
• Date Published: 1985
• Length: 20 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: For microfiche, see NCJ-107173.

Annotation

Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases in regard to theories of admissibility and the admissibility of the child sexual abuse syndrome are examined, and recommendations about future permissible expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases are made.

Abstract

Most of the cases discussed come from Washington's appellate courts. In State v. Maule (1982), the defendant's conviction for abusing his two daughters was overturned because expert testimony addressing general offender characteristics was ruled inadmissible. However, the Washington Supreme Court ruled a social worker's testimony about typical time lengths and relationship characteristics of delayed reporting admissible in State v. Petrich (1984). State v. Fitzgerald (1985) precluded testimony about victims' truthfulness when a physician testified about the truthfulness of the victim's accusations even though there was no evidence of physical abuse. In State v. Kim (1982), a psychiatrist was allowed to testify to a child's truthfulness. The admissibility of testimony concerning the child sexual abuse syndrome is also discussed. Recommendations include avoiding direct comments on credibility and character traits and artful phrasing of questions about the dynamics of delayed reporting in child sexual abuse cases. The 'battle of the experts' in truth finding is discouraged as bad policy resulting in purchased opinions and multiple psychological examinations for the child. 30 footnotes.