Document Category: Child Sexual Abuse

This motion challenges a forensic child abuse investigator’s attempt to bolster a child complainant’s credibility in a sexual assault case through testimony about Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). Drawing on social science and precedent, the motion argues that CSAAS testimony is not admissible under FRE 702 & Daubert because it is not scientifically reliable (pp. 15-19), has not been tested or subjected to peer review (pp. 19-24), and is not generally accepted (pp. 24-27). The danger of unfair prejudice also substantially outweighs any probative value such that it is inadmissible under FRE 403 (pp. 35-38), and CSAAS testimony is not helpful and improperly invades the jury’s province to determine witness credibility (pp. 38-40). The motion applies to testimony by a forensic examiner about alleged common responses of child sexual assault victims to abuse, including secrecy, helplessness, accommodation, delayed disclosure, and recantation (pp. 32-33).

Pgs. 7-8 – summarize scientific research describing how people create entirely false memories, a study of false memory creation, and a list of false memory risk factors, particularly for children.

Pgs. 9-10 – explain how interview techniques can create false memories in children, even false memories that do not seem to directly relate to the questions asked by the interviewer, and why expert testimony is needed to educate the jury on the counterintuitive nature of memory creation (i.e., the more detailed a memory, the higher the likelihood of error).

Pgs. 12-14 argue that, because the science behind false memories is similar to that of mistaken eyewitness identifications and both require jury education to evaluate witness credibility, expert testimony on false memories should be admitted at the discretion of the trial judge under the same logic.

Overview of flaws in proposed testimony explaining how children respond in aftermath of sexual abuse