Can We Overhaul Forensic Science?

by Andrea Campbell

In my last article we talked about the report compiled by the National Academy of Sciences on behalf of Congress, that issued a sweeping critique about how forensic science methods were found lacking. As part of the diatribe the report also suggested that a federal agency should be created to guarantee independence between labs and law enforcement; and that lack of standardization, training, techniques and so forth be remedied. Hear, hear, I say, good idea.

But it’s a lot to fathom. Evidence, ever since crime has wielded its ugly head, has always been subject to criticism and the legality of evidentiary proof is generally taken up by the courts, one case at a time. There is no doubt that this industry is run on a budget that, in another field—say construction—you could say that structures have been built with Popsicle sticks and bailing wire. We get it. Forensic science grew up in its own inherent way as needed. There was no great plan. Innovative scientists crafted techniques that worked and were applied successfully over and over again with the same result. And that is largely the premise of science—to repeat a test that remains consistent with theorized results.

But if we use fingerprints in our theory, it's true: No two people look at fingerprints the same way because it is largely a subjective business relying first on the expertise of the examiner.

With fingerprints, basically the print is examined by human eye under magnification and a matching takes place. A friend of mine who worked at the state crime lab here, told me stories about the old days where prints were stored on cards and separated out by hand and put into metal filing cabinets. Granted, technology has entered into the methodology improving some of the ease of handling exemplars but, still, it remains a business of a human being making a call as to whether the prints match. Now obviously a print that matched in 12 points (12 different areas) would be better matched than one that only had 8 similar points and standardization would help in that regard. But, you know what? fingerprints don’t come in neatly, 100% on a clean card. They arrive as partials, smudges, half-prints and so on, which is more realistic.

Let’s talk about another of the sore spots in the report: bitemarks. Bitemarks are impressions evidence and they are found on a variety of substances—skin, of course, but also in duct tape, car weather-stripping, cheese, and heaven only knows what else. It’s true that a bitemark should be examined by someone who is an expert in bitemarks and that would be a forensic odontologist. He is a person who is probably a practicing dentist or dental surgeon and knows teeth in his sleep. But can you make a guess as to how many actual “forensic” odonotologists are available in the U.S.? I have no real idea personally, and do not want to be nailed to a guesstimate, but I would venture to say, it’s probably under a couple hundred who avail themselves to this type of work. Yes, there’s a lacking there. But does that mean that a lab-trained forensic scientist who specializes in impressions evidence, footprints, tire tracks, etc., would not be able to recognize a similarity between a bite mark and a human impression? I would hope they would be able to suss it out.

In 1928, a report came out from the National Academy of Sciences that basically said that the coroner system in the United States was an “anachronistic institution,” and that coroners should be given the heave and be replaced by medical examiners, men and women who have doctorates in pathology. That may be a righteous goal, but today, more than half the states have county coroners pronouncing death and giving determinations. The recommendation didn’t happen. Why? Apathy, lack of funding, no regulatory board, no consensus and hey, guess what? crime moves on and waits for no stinkin’ regulation. Now I am a fan of regulation and doing things the right way. But I have a friend who is a coroner in Hot Springs proper (I live in the Village, another community) and he was an EMT for many years. Now I’d say that my friend as an Emergency Medical Technician has seen more than his share of near-deaths, the dying, and the fully dead. Should he be able to say if something looked suspicious? I would hope so. The autopsy would be done by a medical examiner as the result of his call anyway.

This is not a subject that is going to have simple answers. Of course, we don’t want people accused of crimes they didn’t commit. But I have a ton of friends at the Arkansas State Crime Lab in all disciplines, and I do not for a minute think that they are slackers, unqualified, or that they nudge the evidence in favor of law enforcement.

But, YES, let’s fund the crime labs better. Hire more qualified people. Have standards for the various disciplines. All the components the laboratories need are years and years to put new procedures into action, more money than we care to know about, and dedicated overseers who have all the time in the world. And what do we do in the meantime? Put a hold on courtroom evidence? The defense attorneys among us are shouting “Yes!”—I know it. And would you or I in their same position disagree? probably not. They have their own duty to uphold to their client, the accused.

Feel free to weigh in here.

Tweet

Is Casey Anthony Another Susan Smith?

by Lucy Puryear, M.D.

I am often asked by the media to comment on cases where mothers have harmed or killed their children. I frequently am called by attorneys asking for help in their cases where a mother has killed her child.

Because of my work in the Andrea Yates case it is hoped that I may be able to offer some psychiatric defense for other defendants. If the alleged murderer was suffering from psychosis then a verdict of Not Guilty by reason of insanity may be successful. Many attorneys wrongfully assume (or hope against hope) that if the mother they represent has killed her child then she must be "crazy." I am sure she is "crazy" in some form, but not always in a way that mitigates her responsibility for the crime.

It is impossible for me to forget the case of Susan Smith. It was October of 1994, and I was a second-year resident in psychiatry at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston. I was learning how to diagnose psychiatric illness and treat psychiatric emergencies. We were also being trained in detecting whether someone was fabricating or exaggerating their illness for some secondary gain. It was not at all unusual to interview persons who were trying to get prescription medications from naive young doctors, or who wanted to be admitted to the hospital for a warm bed and three free meals.

But as I watched Susan Smith on television tearful and begging for the lives of her children, I felt tremendous sorrow and grief for her. I could only imagine how devastating it would be if I had been accosted and my children kidnapped. Her grief felt in sharp contrast to the drug addict trying to convince me they were terribly anxious and needed me to prescribe Valium. I knew one women was in real pain, and the other just trying to manipulate me.

The nation and I were shocked to learn that while Susan Smith sobbed, her children were strapped in to their car seats, at the bottom of a lake. The person responsible for their deaths? Their mother.

In the Casey Anthony case we have a mother who allegedly killed her child, stored her daughter's body in the trunk of the car, and then began to party. Only when questioned did she report that her daughter had been missing for some time.

Unlike Susan Smith, we never saw her on television begging for her child's return. We did see her at the disco and at Target, acting as if life couldn't be better. Even if she didn't murder her cute-as-a-button daughter, why is she acting so blase about the fact that her daughter is missing? Unexplainable.

What are the possible reasons a mother could kill her child? From a psychiatric point of view, I think there's something seriously wrong with someone who murders her own child. It doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be punished, but I also think that a diagnosis of some type can be made. Let's start with the "easier to make the connection" psychiatric disorders:

1. Psychosis: A person hears voices telling them to harm their child or has a delusion that makes them believe their child needs to be saved from evil or their child is evil and the world needs to be saved. This was true in the Andrea Yates case; she believed her children were being taken over by Satan, and in order to save them from hell she had to send them to heaven while they were still innocent enough for God to take them. This can happen to women who become psychotic for the first time after delivery, or in patients who have previous diagnoses of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. This can be prevented with appropriate psychiatric intervention and medication. Mothers can be treated and children do not have to die.

2. Depression: A mother can become so severely depressed that she wants to kill herself but feels that her children would suffer without a mother. She kills the children before she attempts to kill herself. Sometimes she is unsuccessful at taking her own life and must face the emotional and legal consequences of her choice. This can happen in severe postpartum depression or in cases where a mother is depressed due to financial or marital stresses. She believes she is protecting her children from being left behind to suffer. Depression can also be identified and treated and lives saved.

3. Borderline Personality Disorder: This is a complicated diagnosis and varies in severity from individual to individual. The characteristics of this diagnosis are mood lability with terrible feelings of depression, loneliness, emptiness, and despair. This mood symptoms are often accompanied by substance abuse, risk-taking behavior, and suicidal thoughts with less serious attempts. These attempts are often seen as cries for help. Persons with BPD form intense chaotic relationships which are often passionately good early on and then become disappointing and passionately bad later on. This disorder usually occurs in people who have histories of childhood abuse, abandonment, parents with disorder, or other chaotic, "not safe," inconsistent attachments to caretakers. Borderline Personality Disorder is hard to treat. The treatment consists of long-term psychotherapy and medication.

Although I have not personally interviewed Susan Smith, this is most likely her diagnosis. She was raised by a violent alcoholic father who later committed suicide when her mother divorced him. Her mother remarried a man who molested Susan for many years without reprisal. Susan began to engage in relationships with married men while she was in high school and was in the middle of a divorce and rejected by her lover when she released the parking brake in her car and watched her children drown. She knew what she was doing was wrong, but at that moment was feeling such despair and hopelessness that it felt like a way to make life less complicated. She also believed that without her two children her boyfriend might take her back. She was terrified to be alone without a man in her life to allow her to feel complete.

4. Narcissitic Personality Disorder: This is an unfortunately common personality disorder that often does not cause the person who has it much discomfort. Persons with this type of character have little regard for needs or feelings of others, but use others to meet their own needs and desires. Often those with this type of disorder are successful in their business or careers and can appear outgoing and charismatic, but they draw people to them for their own personal gain. If a loved one or colleague stops being useful to them then they can be easily disposed of without much pain. If there are problems in their lives, they are blamed on the inadequacies of others. Narcissistic individuals have a hard time taking personal responsibility. The causes for this disorder are not entirely clear, but often there is a childhood history of being highly adulated by parents, not made to take responsibility for mistakes with parents often helping to cover-up or fix problems, and having things given without having to learn the value of hard work and disappointment.

I don't know Casey Anthony's history, but her behavior certainly fits one who has little regard for others, is primarily interested in her own welfare and happiness, and will go to great lengths to escape consequences or punishment. Susan Smith confessed to what she had done and felt remorse. Casey Anthony continues to lie and deceive.

5. Antisocial Personality Disorder: These are the people who fill our jails. People without conscience, morality, or the ability to live within societal norms. I can give too many examples of this. . . . Mothers who drown their kids to get back at cheating boyfriends . . . Mothers who leave their kids alone to go hang out at the crack house . . . Mothers who abuse and torture their children for . . . enjoyment. At the moment there is no treatment for this disorder. Therapy as an adult doesn't work. Early childhood intervention is most likely the key. There has been one study published that links those in jail to having had mothers who had postpartum depression. By the time someone reaches jail it is mostly too late.

Mothers will continue to kill their children. Jail may most certainly be appropriate for some individuals, but it is not a deterrent to other mothers. Fortunately there are some causes of maternal filicide that are very treatable with proper screening, identification, and treatment.

The Mother's Act in Congress failed but will be brought out again for another vote. This law would require more money be earmarked for the recognition of, treatment for, and research of postpartum psychiatric disorders. (If only it been part of the "pork" in the bailout, like the Parity bill which mandates insurance companies pay equally for psychiatric illnesses.)

Early childhood intervention to prevent child abuse, neglect, ensure quality education and day care, and support for single mothers could go a long way towards decreasing the incidence of antisocial personality disorders. Susan Smith could have benefited from intensive therapy and intervention by someone to stop the abuse by her stepfather. We have the means and the knowledge to stop some of these heinous crimes.

Casey Anthony? There was a book written in 1954 called The Bad Seed. A good read.

Tweet

Upholding Legal Rights of Mentally Ill Defendants

by Lucy Puryear, M.D.

On June 19, 2008, the Supreme Court of the U.S. issued a decision in which it held that a higher standard must be used to determine defendants' competence to represent themselves in criminal cases than the test used to determine the accuseds' competence to stand trial. Plainly speaking, this means that while a mentally ill defendant can be found competent to stand trial it does not necessarily follow that they can competently represent themselves as their own counsel.

Fundamentally this could be viewed as a negative decision for the mentally ill. One of our constitutional rights is self-representation in court. We are allowed to tell our story the way we want it told and to plead our case in a manner that we believe is in our own best interest. Now most of us would do a pretty terrible job of maneuvering ourselves through a court case, but sometimes taking your lawyers advice doesn't turn out as you'd hoped. I have heard defendants ask, "Why didn't my lawyer do this, or why didn't they say that?" Sometimes juries will express, "Why didn't we hear from the defendant, I want to hear his version of the story." Not speaking for yourself is not always the right decision.

It becomes very complicated in a case where the defendant is floridly psychotic (hearing voices, speaking in gibberish). Nothing useful will come from that defendant trying to conduct his own trial. The court process becomes derailed and nothing good is accomplished for either the defense or the prosecution. Often the defendant by his very mental state convicts himself with little effort by the prosecution.

But does it make sense to allow someone to be competent to stand trial and yet too ill to represent themselves? Most courtrooms are all too ready to allow a mentally ill defendant to be tried. Recently the Supreme Court of the United States said yes in the Indiana v. Edwards decision. (Facts of the case excerpted from the NAMI newsletter.)

In July 1999, Ahmad Edwards was discovered trying to steal a pair of shoes from an Indiana department store. After being discovered, he fired a gun at a store security officer and wounded a bystander. He was charged with attempted murder, battery with a deadly weapon, criminal recklessness and theft. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and subsequently found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to a state psychiatric hospital for further evaluation and treatment. His competency and mental status fluctuated over the course of five years and he was not found competent to proceed to trial until July 2004.

In June 2005, Edwards stood trial. He asked to represent himself but the trial court rejected this request and the jury found him guilty of criminal recklessness and theft but failed to reach a verdict on the charges of attempted murder and battery. The State decided to retry him on the attempted murder and battery charges and he was retried in December 2005. The trial court again found that he was competent to stand trial but not competent to represent himself.

Despite being represented by counsel at his retrial, the jury convicted him on both counts. Edwards appealed, arguing that he had been wrongfully deprived of his constitutional right to represent himself. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which addressed the legal question of whether the standard for allowing defendants to represent themselves at trial should be higher than the standard for finding defendants competent to stand trial.

The Court decided that there was a higher standard for representing yourself than the standard for competency. To be found competent to stand trial you must be able to consult with your attorney with a "reasonable degree of rational understanding." This means in general that you are able to know what you have been charged with, be able to consult in formulating your own defense, and be able to explain the nature of the pleas involved. (In an interesting aside, Andrea Yates was found competent to stand trial although she initially wanted to plead guilty so that she would be executed by the state which was the only entity who could kill Satan inside of her. She understood the plea but her psychosis was unable to initially allow her to follow her lawyer's advice.)

The Edwards decision states that to be competent to represent yourself you must have the ability for "organization of defense, making motions, arguing points of law . . . questioning witnesses and addressing the court and jury." The court is stating that those that are mentally ill may be well enough be found competent but still not be able to represent themselves. While this may appear to be taking away the rights from persons with a disability it may be ultimately in their best legal defense. The Court also comments on the humaneness of the decision, "A right of self-representation at trial will not affirm the dignity of a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to conduct his defense without the assistance of counsel," Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote. "To the contrary, given that defendant's uncertain mental state, the spectacle that could well result from his self-representation at trial is at least as likely to prove humiliating as ennobling."

The United States has long struggled with the treatment of the mentally ill. From locking them up in sanitariums for years to locking them up in jails. No one knows quite what to do with the mentally ill defendant who, although it may be obvious that they've committed a crime, it's also obvious that they are seriously disturbed. In Houston alone it is estimated that some 50% of the inmates in the juvenile justice system are seriously and chronically mentally ill. Jail is not a great treatment for a psychiatric disorder.

Texas in particular has struggled with the death penalty and the mentally ill criminal. We have had a history of executing those with known, documented, and profound psychotic illness. This is an embarrassment for our state and a terrible example for respecting human rights. This ruling by the United States Supreme Court is a very small step forward in assuring that those who commit crimes and are suffering from mental illness have both their rights protected and receive fair trails. What to do with a mentally ill defendant after conviction is the topic of another blog. I look forward to sharing my thoughts on a very complicated issue.

Tweet

Should Sex With a Minor Always Be Major?

by Katherine Scardino

Despite the recent controversy over the polygamist sect raid in Eldorado, Texas, pretty much all of us would agree on one thing: fifty-something-year-old men should not be having sex with minors. But what if that male was another teen, who happens to be of "legal" age, say eighteen or nineteen?

In Texas, an individual may be prosecuted for Aggravated Sexual Assault under certain circumstances. One of those reasons is if the victim is under the age of fourteen. There is no "escape" clause; there is no "except for" clause.

For instance, if you are a young man and you have sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual contact with a girl younger than fourteen years, you are strictly liable for that offense.

Try this hypothetical: You are a young man, age nineteen, sleeping in your bed one Saturday morning. Your phone rings. It is a police officer asking you to come to the police station and make a statement. "Why?" you ask. You are then informed that there has been an allegation of aggravated sexual assault against you. Yikes! You say. What in the hell is this all about?

Like most young people today, this 19-year-old has a MySpace page. About a year ago, he received a message from a young girl who, after several back and forth Internet conversations, told him she was sixteen. Even though sixteen years of age is still a minor, our law tells us that it’s OK for a boy to have a relationship with a minor if there is no more than a three-year age difference. Of course, he had no clue about that at that time, but has since learned of this law.

So, after a week or so of chatting on MySpace, a lot of "sex-talk," this 19-year-old makes arrangements with the "16-year-old" to meet at a movie theater in the area where she lives with her parents and sister. They meet and have sex. He goes back to his life. The young girl calls him many times after the meeting to start a "relationship." The boy was not interested. The sexual assault allegation comes next.

Do not misinterpret. Neither I, nor anyone I know, condones young men having sex with young girls. But, we have to be realistic and recognize that, first of all, most 13-year-old girls do not look thirteen years old. They are much more sophisticated than I ever thought about being at the age of thirteen. Most of them wear makeup straight from Neiman Marcus makeup counter (maybe circuitously through their mother’s supply, but nevertheless, adult makeup). And, their attire mimics Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan and other Hollywood wannabees. While I certainly sympathize with the parents of a 13-year-old girl--even one who appears at first glance to be older than thirteen--I also sympathize with the parents of this young man. He did not do what I always told my sons to do: When in doubt, ask to see her driver’s license.

The above situation is one of the scariest for any young man. He is technically guilty. Period. If this young man went to trial on the charge of Aggravated Sexual Assault and was found guilty, as he assuredly would be, he would be sentenced to a term in prison, either 5 to 99 years, or for Life. Upon release, he then would have to register as a Sex Offender for the rest of his life.

As a registered sex offender, he would most likely forever be denied employment or the ability to live in an apartment. If he was able to get probation for his "offense," he would still have to register as a lifetime sex offender--same problems. (This is precisely the reason a 17-year-old Atlanta boy chose to do a ten-year sentence rather than plead guilty to an offense consisting of consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old. He was released after serving two years.)

As a defense attorney, I am trying to convince the prosecutor that to ruin this young man’s life based on circumstances similar to the above would not be just. The girl is at fault morally and ethically--but not legally. A "child" is unable to give consent to sexual contact of any kind.

But consent is not all of the issue. It is the world we live in today. We have the Internet where our young people live. They are able to be in constant contact not only with their friends, but with anyone who is also as "Internet active" as they are. Anyone, anytime.

In Texas, the State Legislature almost changed this law during their last session, but a revision of this law did not pass. In my opinion, this is one of the failures of our criminal justice system. This law is just not right.

Tweet

If I Were Judge, Jury, and Lawmaker, Too . . .

by Robin Sax

There’s not a week that goes by when someone doesn’t ask me, “How can you prosecute sex crimes without getting ill, jaded or miserable?” Well, while my job is challenging, I consider it an honor and privilege to give young victims a voice, a place to regain trust, and a place to heal. But today, I‘d like to tackle a different question: “What would you do to the change the system?”

So, if I were judge, jury, and lawmaker, here’s my answer. And by the way, I’ll be brutally honest, even if I think you won’t like what I have to say.

1. First, I believe there should be mandatory sentencing schemes in all jurisdictions. Mandatory sentencing schemes should not require specific additional factors that a jury would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Under many current statutes, a case involving two victims would make a case eligible for a mandatory life sentence. If, however, the jury convicted one victim and not the other (which happens very often because jurors like to throw a “bone” to the defendant), then the case may no longer hold a mandatory life sentence.) I believe the existence of the multiple-victim factor alone should qualify a case for an enhanced penalty.

2. I believe that the Supreme Court should overturn the Crawford decision. Under current law, if a victim dies or is legally unavailable for a court appearance, the victim’s prior statements made to the police or hospital would be inadmissible, due to the defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine the witness. I am in favor of the law prior to the recent Crawford decision that allows for admitting victims' or unavailable persons' previous statements made under certain conditions that ensure reliability.Why should a defendant benefit from the death or legal unavailability of his or her victim?

3. Our jury system sounds wonderful in theory Under the Constitution, each person charged with a crime is entitled to have the case heard by a jury of one’s peers., “peers” are people selected from our community who listen to the evidence and determine what the facts are in the case, while the judge decides on the legal issues.

“A jury of one’s peers” is based on the supposed impartiality of a random sample of the population. It assumes that the average accused will share more similarities than differences with a random sample of the population, and therefore will be judged by people who are likely to give the accused a fair shake.

The problem with this theory is twofold. First, those of us who are not “average” will have a much smaller likelihood of having a jury that comprises our peers. Second, the mechanisms of the “voir dire” process, or jury selection, increases the problem by creating juries composed of a greater percentage of poor, uneducated, unintelligent people, with very little experience with the justice system, than their natural prevalence in society.

The solution to this imbalance is a professional jury system. Professional jurors would be laypersons educated for the task. They would be taught to understand the rules of evidence, the trial process and instruction, and would be tested thoroughly on their objectivity. Most important, a professional jury would have no motivation other than ensuring that due process was followed. The complexities, nuances, and intricacies involved in a child sexual assault warrant a professional jury both because of the difficulty of the case and the great danger of releasing a predator back into society if a jury makes the wrong decision.

4. We need better supervision of registered sex offenders. Some ways to improve supervision include requiring registered sex offenders to register their computer Internet accounts, IP addresses, telephone numbers--not just their physical address. They should be required to inform authorities of international travel and there should be an integrated international registration system (like that for known terrorists) to monitor the “comings and goings” of registered sex offenders. Registered sex offenders should also be subject to lifetime counseling and therapy, and not only conditions of parole or probation.

5. Money and time should be available to train the professionals in this field. This goes for all the agencies involved, including law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, therapists, judges, probation, and parole officers. It's important, of course, to stay current on the latest advances and laws in this area. Additionally, studies show that training and resources alleviate burnout and serve to inspire and motivate people in this line of work.

6. Right now, it’s standard procedure to assign prosecutors and law enforcement to handle sex crimes for a limited time before rotating them to another area of crime. The benefit of being in a vertical unit (handling all aspects of a case from beginning to end) is that there is a high degree of specialization and high accountability for those involved.

The whole theory behind vertical prosecution is to have a group of people trained in this highly difficult area so that they become specialists. However, all too often, once a prosecutor or detective reaches about a year or so in the unit, they get transferred.The bureaucratic thinking is that prosecutors and detectives should be cross-trained in all areas of criminal law, and that specializing narrows a prosecutor’s or detective’s skills. In the sex crimes area, where cases are so sensitive and the victims have their own special needs, I believe that lawyers and detectives should be assigned for a minimum of five years. Also, I believe lawyers and law enforcers should be assigned to these units only if they want to be there. This is not the type of unit for someone who doesn’t have the requisite passion or a tough enough stomach to handle these cases.

7. Specific courtrooms should be designated and designed for child sexual assault (and child abuse) cases, so they are 100% devoted to the needs and realities of kids who testify. For example, courtrooms can be painted in “kid friendly”colors like pastels, so they look more like a classroom than the typical large, windowless, intimidating enclosure. The chairs on the witness stand should be appropriately “kid sized” and adjustable so that a child’s feet can reach the floor. Further, the judges in these cases should be especially trained to handle them, and to be very familiar with the laws pertaining to child testimony. They would thus be able to use their discretion to protect the child and assist the child when giving testimony. This system can be modeled after the drug courts that are in place in many jurisdictions, where specific courts are devoted to drug addicts and focus on treatment, as opposed to punishment. These courts work with the defendants to address their issues and are sensitive to the needs of addicts.

8. There should be limits to an attorney’s ability to cross-examine and badger kids. One of the basic tenets of our Constitution is that criminal defendants have the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them. It often seems that our criminal justice system offers greater protection to the accused than to the child victim involved in a sexual abuse prosecution.

9. Finally, in recent years, legislators have been concerned about defendants who escape punishment for sexually molesting young children because the children are afraid to testify in the defendant's presence. To address this problem, many states have enacted special rules that authorize judges--in certain situations--to allow children to testify via closed-circuit television. The defendant can see the child on a television monitor, but the child cannot see the defendant. The defense attorney can be present where the child is testifying and can cross-examine the child. Closed-circuit TV should be allowed more readily than its current use.

10. Currently, admissibility of expert testimony requires the prosecutor to jump thorough a number of legal hoops. And even when admitted, the admissibility tends to be for extremely limited purposes. Expert testimony should be welcomed and encouraged (from both sides) in order to assist jurors in understanding the unique issues when it comes to child sexual assault. The very things that the defense highlights as a way to discredit a child are the factors that can make a disclosure more credible if put into perspective by an expert. These include delayed disclosure, recantation, minimization, self blame, lying first in order to protect the abuser or fearing they are in trouble, and understanding why “smart” kids engage in risk-taking behavior.

11. Defense attorneys should be as sensitive and compassionate about victims as they are about their own clients. There must be legislation to stop re-victimizing the victim through the court process and to cease casting blame on the victim for being a crime victim.

12. Cases involving children should go to trial as soon as possible and definitely no later than six months from the filing. Currently, the most expeditious cases are tried in roughly a year from the date it was filed (not necessarily reported). Unlike fine wine, an aging case never gets better for the prosecution as time goes by.

13. As an alternative to jail and/or prison there should be live-in/lock-down facilities that are meant to work with, treat, and study sex offenders. Like drug rehabilitation, there should be facilities where we can take a low-level sex offender off the streets to ensure the safety of the public and treat them (if possible) or at least learn from the offender.

14. There should be amendments to the rule against double jeopardy (which means you can’t be tried twice for the same offense) to enable the re-opening of proceedings against acquitted defendants where there is compelling new evidence. This will apply to a range of grave offenses, including those involving serious sexual offenses.

15. There should be a total ban, or at least limitations, on what a child sexual assault defendant should be allowed to do in the criminal process. For example, if representing himself, he should not be able to personally direct or cross-examine the complaining children who are witnessing against him. He should not be able to access all the discovery information that a defense attorney (an officer of the court) would normally receive, such as the victim’s school records, rape exam photos, and other confidential records.

16.If a case is appealed after a conviction, it may take two or three years before a court determines whether or not the defendant is entitled to a new trial. If the defendant is granted a new trial, the prosecution would need to bring the victim in to testify again. The new or old testimony could then be presented as “inconsistencies” from the first testimony, thus casting doubt on the victim’s credibility. If the cause for appeal has nothing to do with the victim’s testimony, the victim should not be made to return to court and the entire prior testimony should be stipulated as accurate and complete.

There is no greater concern in society than the concern people have for children. Whether it is providing a better earth, protecting kids from wars, terrorism, criminals, or abuse, our society prides itself on shielding our young. And with good reason--children are powerless to take on the perils of our world on their own. We can give children the voice that they so desperately deserve if our leaders, lawmakers, and voters spoke up on and acted to protect the children we brought into this world.

POSTS FROM ROBIN SAX DO NOT REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

Tweet