Files and links (1)
Schneider_Nancy_19947.23 MB
PDF Access upon request, Email title, URL, or DOI to archives@drexel.edu
Dissertation
How the experts compare with judges and jurors in an awareness of child sex abuse facts and phenomena: is there a role for the expert?
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Hahnemann University; Villanova University, School of Law
Nov 1994
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17918/00007443
Abstract
Expert witness testimony on typical reactions of child sexual abuse victims has been ruled inadmissible in Pennsylvania courts by judges who have found it: (1) not relevant because jurors already know most of what experts offer as evidence; (2) unreliable because the information is not generally accepted by professionals in the field; or (3) prejudicial to the defendant because it bears on the credibility of the child witness. The present study was designed to test the relevancy and reliability of experts' testimony on this subject. A group of judges, jurors and experts responded to a 21-item questionnaire made up of statements offered as expert testimony in Pennsylvania courts. Correct answers were determined by a review of the research. Although Experts scored significantly higher than Judges and Jurors, there was a lack of expert consensus on 12 questions. Jurors did know that children's failure to report, recantation, difficulty with dates and times, and inability to recall specific details of the abuse did not suggest fabrication. They knew that six-year olds could separate real from imagined events, and that very young children were capable of telling the truth from a lie. Jurors did not know that the rate of false allegations is low, that many victims do not show fear of the offender, and that some children lie about sexual events. They were not aware of the prevalence of symptoms in sexually abused children. Judges, while not scoring significantly different than the Jurors, demonstrated more doubt in the veracity of children's reports, especially in custody cases and when the child recants. All three groups endorsed the untested notion that confused and inconsistent testimony did not reflect on its accuracy and showed a lack of awareness of children's sexual behavior and knowledge. The results suggest that some information offered by experts is legally not relevant or reliable, while other information is both relevant and reliable. The federal standard for admissibility of scientific evidence that the information "assist the trier of fact" is suggested as an alternative to the current "beyond the ken of the average juror" standard in Pennsylvania.
Metrics
65 Record Views
Details
- Title
- How the experts compare with judges and jurors in an awareness of child sex abuse facts and phenomena
- Creators
- Nancy B. Schneider
- Contributors
- Donald N. Bersoff (Advisor) - Drexel University, Hahnemann University (1982-1993)
- Awarding Institution
- Hahnemann University; Villanova University, School of Law
- Degree Awarded
- Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
- Publisher
- Hahnemann University; Villanova University, School of Law; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Number of pages
- x, 188 pages
- Resource Type
- Dissertation
- Language
- English
- Academic Unit
- Hahnemann University (1982-1993); Mental Health (Technology/Sciences) (1988-1993); School of Health Sciences and Humanities (1988-1993); Psychology (1988-1993)
- Other Identifier
- 991021888880104721