Expert witnesses in child abuse cases

Sagatun, Inger J.

doi:10.1002/bsl.2370090209

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Experts in child sexual abuse cases mainly provide two types of expert testimony (Sagatun, 1991). In the trial of an alleged perpetrator, experts may be utilized by the prosecution to rehabilitate child testimony following an attack by the defense.…”

Section: Expert Testimonymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Post Hoc Reasoning in Possible Cases of Child Sexual Abuse: Symptoms of Inconclusive Origins.

Sbraga¹,

O’Donohue²

2003

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses the role of psychological expert testimony in possible cases of child sexual abuse (CSA). It describes the logical conditions that must be met in order to engage validly in post hoc reasoning from present symptoms experienced by a child to the conclusion that the child has or has not been sexually abused. The use of various stress and sexual abuse accommodation theories as support for these conclusions is examined. In addition, the practical problems of using Bayes’ Theorem to inform jurors in suspected cases of CSA are described, and an actuarial model of post hoc reasoning is proposed. Given the gaps in knowledge concerning the relevant probabilities and thus the differential probabilities of symptom/abuse versus symptom/no abuse, it is argued that it is not possible currently to reason from symptom observation at Time., to abuse status at Time,. The implications of this thesis are explored. Finally, the valuable forensic contributions that may be made by mental health experts in cases of alleged CSA are suggested.

show abstract

Section: Expert Testimonymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Historically, the model of sexual abuse reactions that is most popular in the courtroom (Sagatun, 1991) is the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS, Summit, 1983). Summit proposed this model based on his clinical experience with child victims of sexual abuse.…”

Section: Trauma Models and Post Hoc Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post Hoc Reasoning in Possible Cases of Child Sexual Abuse: Symptoms of Inconclusive Origins.

Sbraga¹,

O’Donohue²

2003

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Psychological and legal scholars have begun to examine the legal and scientific status of expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases (e.g., Doris, 1991; McCord, 1986; Roe, 1985; Serrato, 1988). In particular, scholars have discussed the admissibility and possible effects of different types of testimony (e.g., syndromal, witness credibility, or behavioral evidence) that could be offered by an expert psychological witness in the context of a child sexual abuse trial (e.g., Levy, 1989; Sagatun, 1991). These different types of testimony vary in their scientific status within the field of psychology, and to the extent that beliefs shape our perceptions of evidence, differential juror perceptions of scientific status may result in differential effects of expert testimony on legal decision making.…”

Section: Influence Of Expert Testimony On Juror Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination.

Kovera¹,

Levy²,

Borgida³

et al. 1994

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 or 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. * Portions of the research reported here were presented at the 1992 Biennial Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Diego, CA. This research was supported by a Grant-in-Aid of Research from the Graduate School at the University of Minnesota to Robert J. Levy. The preparation of this manuscript was facilitated by a University of Minnesota Graduate School Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship awarded to Margaret Bull Kovera. The authors would like to thank Daniel Linz for providing the videotaped trial used in this research and Marti Hope Gonzales, David C. Raskin, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. The authors also extend their thanks to Tracy Cox, Lisa Seales and Don Townsend for their assistance in conducting this research.

show abstract

“…Critics have also debated the merits of another type of expert testimony based on children's behavioral responses: expert testimony reporting on clinical interviews with children during which anatomically detailed (AD) dolls are used as an investigative or therapeutic tool (Koocher et al, 1995;Sagatun, 1991). Some therapists and investigators have used AD dolls to aid children when they describe their experiences of abuse (Everson & Boat, 1994).…”

Section: Amomicauy Detailed Dolls Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aithough some empirical research comparing the play of abused and nonreferred children has supported the assumption that abused children are more likely to engage in sexualized behavior with AD dolls than are nonabused children (e.g., August & Forman, 1989; Jampole & Weber, 1987; White, Strom, Santilli, & Halpin, 1986), other studies have not found differences between these groups (e.g., Cohn, 1991;Kenyon-Jump, Bumette, & Robertson, 1991). Unfortunately, some of this research suffers from methodological constraints, such as the lack of information regarding the reliability of behavioral coding, small sample sizes, and lack of experimenter unawareness of group (e.g., abused vs. nonabused) membership (for methodological criticisms, see Koocher et al, 1995;Levy, 1989;Maan, 1991;Sagatun, 1991).…”

Section: Amomicauy Detailed Dolls Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Expert scientific testimony on child witnesses in the age of Daubert.

Borgida

Expert Witnesses in Child Abuse Cases: What Can and Should Be Said in Court.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

decision has changed the standard for the admission of scientific evidence in federal courts. Although it is still too early to determine how many state courts will follow the federal lead, at least 35 states modeIed their evidentiary rules after the Federal Rules of Evidence (1975) and therefore can be expected to adopt some version of Daubert when ruling on the admission of expert scientific testimony in a variety of cases, including child sexual abuse cases.

show abstract

Expert witnesses in child abuse cases

Cited by 16 publications

References 18 publications

Post Hoc Reasoning in Possible Cases of Child Sexual Abuse: Symptoms of Inconclusive Origins.

Post Hoc Reasoning in Possible Cases of Child Sexual Abuse: Symptoms of Inconclusive Origins.

Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination.

Expert scientific testimony on child witnesses in the age of Daubert.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About