Expert testimony in child sexual abuse trials: the admissibility of psychological science

Abstract

The authors describe a research programme investigating whether psychological evidence about child sexual abuse and child witnesses meets several criteria for admissibility in US courts: (a) general acceptance within the scientific community, (b) helpfulness to the jury, and (c) whether its probative value outweighs its prejudicial value. Responses from a survey of child sexual abuse experts suggest that they agree about the research findings in three areas: the demographic characteristics of sexually abused children, child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (Summit, 1983), and children's cognitive capabilities. Survey responses from college students and community members indicate that they may be especially helped by expert testimony on children's memory. Laypersons may also benefit from a discussion of the paucity of research on offender characteristics and the wide variety of responses to sexual victimization. Data from a survey and a trial simulation suggest that expert testimony on child sexual abuse will not be prejudicial to the defendant. Implications for expert witnesses are discussed. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Do jurors "know" what isn't so about child witnesses?

“…In particular, only 33% knew that a physical examination does not typically show whether a child has been sexually abused. Similar results were reported by Morison and Greene (1992) and Kovera and Borgida (1997): The majority of their juror, community member, and student samples believed that physical evidence exists in most sexual abuse cases and that medical experts can detect abuse. Empirical evidence, however, suggests the contrary.…”

“…Slightly over half of the participants (55%) correctly disagreed with the statement, “Children are not more influenced by leading questions than are adults.” In Kovera and Borgida’s (1997) survey a somewhat larger number of respondents (64% of experts, 75% of students, and 76% of the community sample) correctly disagreed with this statement. In both studies, however, a sizeable number of individuals was inaccurate.…”

“…This pattern was evident when participants’ overall accuracy score was considered and when only those statements endorsing high trust versus skepticism in children’s reports were considered. Kovera and Borgida (1997) also found relatively few differences between their college student and community sample’s perceptions of children’s reactions to and disclosure of child sexual abuse, and in a meta-analysis, Bornstein (1999) reported that college student and jury samples were largely similar in their judgments across a range of types of jury-decision making studies. Insofar as researchers continue to investigate laypersons’ knowledge of child sexual abuse and suggestibility, including the need for expert witnesses in cases involving allegations of child sexual abuse, our results suggest that data collected from college student samples are informative and applicable to juror populations generally.…”

“…Most participants knew that children who are sexually abused may not tell someone right away (84%); that increasingly detailed disclosures of abuse over time do not clearly indicate that the abuse report is false (67%); that inconsistencies in children’s claims of sexual abuse do not indicate that their claims are false (67%); and that retracting claims of sexual abuse does not mean that children were lying in the first place (69%). The majority of participants in Kovera and Borgida’s (1997) survey also agreed that delays in reporting sexual abuse are common and that retraction of a report is not an indicator that children were lying in the first place. Such beliefs are consistent with empirical research.…”

“…Although Kovera and Borgida (1997) did not examine the relations between demographic characteristics of respondents and their survey answers, both Morison and Green (1992) and Schneider (1994) investigated how basic demographic characteristics (e.g., education, age, gender) related to participant responses. Morison and Green reported that increasing education and age were associated with greater accuracy in response to some but not all statements.…”