The Use and Misuse of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), and Prohibition of the CSAAS Expert Giving the Jury Statistical Data

In the infamous Kelly Ann Michaels case in New Jersey, in which Ms. Michaels conviction was eventually overturned in State v. Michaels, 264 N.J. Super. 579, 598-99 (App. Div. 1993), the Appellate Division held that case that CSAAS testimony can never be used as probative testimony of the existence of sexual abuse in a particular case.

Therefore this expert testimony is permissible only when the testimony does not opine whether the particular child was abused, or “connect the dots”, between the victim’s behavior and the syndrome.

In general CSAAS testimony explains to the jury some of the factors which a child-victim might experience and the particular behavior associated with such abuse which can encompass, secrecy, helplessness, entrapment and accommodation, delayed disclosure, and retraction.

In the recent New Jersey Supreme Court case State v. W.B., the State’s expert in CSAAS admitted on cross-examination that some children do falsely report sexual abuse, but added, “the great majority of them do not.”  On redirect by the prosecutor the question was asked to “estimate for us in your clinical experience how many children have lied in your experience.”  Over objects of defense counsel the expert stated anywhere between 5% and 10%, but the great majority do not lie, and that children actually under report what happens to them.

The Appellate Division held that such expert testimony which states statistical credibility of victim-witnesses is inadmissible.  It further held that “statistical information quantifying the number or percentage of abuse victims who lie deprives the jury of its right and duty to decide the question of credibility of the victim based on evidence relating to the particular victim and the particular facts of the case.”

Unfortunately, the defendant’s conviction in this case was not reversed because the court believed there was overwhelming evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

(908) 354-7006

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Dated: June 8, 2011