In criminal trials involving allegations of child sexual abuse, the prosecution sometimes seeks to introduce testimony regarding Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). CSAAS is a controversial theory proposed to explain behaviors commonly observed in abused children, such as delayed reporting, recantation, and seemingly inappropriate affect. While it might offer some psychological insight, the use of CSAAS in courtrooms has sparked significant legal debate. This blog post delves into why defendants should seek to exclude testimony regarding CSAAS in criminal trials, with pivotal case law and strategies for defendants to seek the exclusion of this evidence.

The Concept and Controversy of CSAAS

CSAAS was first introduced by Dr. Roland Summit in 1983 to describe a set of behaviors often exhibited by child victims of sexual abuse, including:

1. Secrecy: The child may keep the abuse secret.
2. Helplessness: The child may feel powerless to stop the abuse.
3. Entrapment and Accommodation: The child may adapt to the abusive situation.
4. Delayed Disclosure: The child may not disclose the abuse until much later.
5. Retraction: The child may recant the disclosure, often due to fear or pressure.

For an in-depth look at CSAAS, read my companion post, Understanding What CSAAS is All About.

While CSAAS aimed to help understand the complex behaviors of abused children, its application in court as expert testimony has been contentious. Critics charge that CSAAS is not a diagnostics tool and should not be used to prove abuse has occurred. The behaviors it describes can result from a variety of traumatic or non-traumatic experiences, making it unreliable for forensic purposes. Introducing CSAAS testimony can unfairly prejudice the jury against the defendant by implying guilt based solely on a child’s behavior.

Why CSAAS Testimony Should Not Be Permitted

There are several reasons why Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) testimony should not be permitted in criminal trials, including:

1. Lack of Scientific Validity: CSAAS is not universally accepted in the scientific community. Critics argue that CSAAS lacks empirical support and is based more on clinical observation than rigorous scientific research. Courts have increasingly scrutinized the scientific validity of CSAAS, often finding it insufficient to meet the standards for admissible expert testimony.
2. Potential to Prejudice Juries: CSAAS testimony can unduly influence juries by suggesting that certain behaviors are indicative of abuse, even when those behaviors could be explained by other factors. This can lead juries to give undue weight to the testimony of alleged child victims, potentially undermining the presumption of innocence and the defendants right to a fair trial.
3. Circular Reasoning: The use of CSAAS in court often involves circular reasoning: the presence of behaviors explained by CSAAS is taken by evidence of abuse, and the existence of abuse as then used to validate the presence of those behaviors. This reasoning can create a biased narrative that skews the trial in favor of the prosecution.

Key Case Law Rulings Against CSAAS Admissibility

Several court cases have addressed, and ruled against, the admissibility of CSAAS testimony, citing concerns about its scientific validity, potential to prejudice the jury, and the risk of misleading the fact-finders. Here are some key cases that illustrate the judicial stance on the issue:

People v. Bowker

In People v. Bowker, 203 Cal. App.3d 385 (1988), the California Court of Appeals held that CSAAS testimony could not be used to prove that abuse occurred. The court emphasized that CSAAS was developed to explain behaviors in already verified cases of abuse, not to establish abuse in contested cases. The court ruled that the testimony about CSAAS was inadmissible because it lacked the necessary scientific reliability and relevance to the issues being contested in the trial.

State v. Ballard

In State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557 (1993), the Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed the admissibility of CSAAS. The court found that such testimony did not meet the standards for scientific evidence and was more prejudicial than probative. The court excluded the CSAAS testimony, stating that it did not have sufficient scientific backing and could mislead the jury.

Commonwealth v. Dunkle

In Commonwealth v. Dunkle, 529 Pa. 168 (1992), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that CSAAS testimony was inadmissible. The court noted that CSAAS was not intended to identify abuse in specific cases, but rather to explain common reactions among abused children. The court concluded that the introduction of CSAAS would create undo bias and confusion, outweighing any potential probative value.

State v. J.L.G.

In State v. J.L.G., 190 A.3d 442 (2018), the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that CSAAS was generally inadmissible, and its component behaviors, other than delayed disclosure, may no longer be admitted in criminal trials.

State v. Saldana

In State v. Saldana, 324 N.W.2d 227 (1982), the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that CSAAS testimony should be excluded as it did not meet the necessary standards for scientific evidence. The court was concerned that such testimony could unfairly bolster the credibility of the alleged victim without sufficient scientific basis.

Steps to Preclude or Challenge Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS)

Defendants seeking to exclude CSAAS testimony in a criminal trial should:

1. File a Motion in Limine: A motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the court to exclude certain evidence from being presented during the trial. Defendants should argue that CSAAS lacks scientific validity, is unduly prejudicial, and fails to meet the standards for admissible expert evidence.
2. Demand a Frye or Daubert Hearing: In jurisdictions following the standard set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Dir. 1923), defendants can request a Frye hearing to determine whether CSAAS testimony is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. In jurisdictions that follow the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993), defendants can request a Daubert hearing to assess the scientific validity and reliability of the CSAAS testimony.

If CSAAS testimony cannot be excluded, defendants should:

1. Challenge the Qualifications of the Expert: Defendants can challenge the qualifications of the prosecutions expert witness, arguing that the expert lacks the necessary scientific credentials or expertise in the specific field of CSAAS.
2. Present Counter-Expert Testimony: Defendants can introduce their own expert witnesses to counter the CSAAS testimony, providing evidence that challenges the scientific validity of CSAAS and highlights alternative explanations for the alleged victims behavior.
3. Emphasize Jury Instructions: Defendants should request specific jury instructions that caution jurors about the limitations and potential biases of CSAAS testimony. Clear jury instructions can help mitigate the prejudicial impact of such testimony.

My Final Thoughts

The admission of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) testimony in criminal trials involving allegations of child sexual abuse, raises significant concerns about scientific validity and potential prejudice. Courts have increasingly recognized these issues, leading to rulings that exclude CSAAS testimony on the grounds that it lacks scientific reliability and can unduly influence juries. Defendants have several avenues to challenge the admissibility of CSAAS evidence, ensuring that their right to a fair trial is protected. By understanding the legal landscape and effectively utilizing pretrial motions and expert testimony, defendants can work to exclude CSAAS evidence from trials or minimize its prejudicial impact.

If you, or someone you know, will be proceeding to trial, challenging an imposed sentence or pursuing any type of post-conviction relief, our book, The Colossal Book of Criminal Citations, is a crucial resource in the pursuit of justice. Our books are soft cover, institution friendly, in stock, and ready for immediate shipping. Order your copy today, or on behalf of someone incarcerated.