How to Cross-Examine the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) Expert for the Prosecution.

This Blog was written and published for the People by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Often in an alleged sexual assault case of a minor the State prosecutor will offer a CSAAS expert (Child Sexual Abuse Accomodation Syndrome witness) who will testify that the child’s delayed reporting of the abuse is normal in children.  They will use this testimony not only to explain why the delayed reporting is common, but more deceitfully to falsely plant the seed with the jury with the idea that in fact the child is actually telling the truth because he or she delayed in said reporting.

One form of effective cross-examination goes like this.

1.   So, doctor, you’re not saying the child is necessarily telling the truth, correct?

2.   Or that this incident actually happened?

3.   Sometimes children delay in reporting sexual abuse because it never happened, correct?

4.   And other times the delay reporting happens at some future time, due to family influences or the stories of other children, and they make up the claims, correct?

5.   The fact that the child’s allegation came so much later in no way enhances the child’s credibility, correct?

Note, any real cross would be much better structured and somewhat longer, but only somewhat longer. Get in, quickly make your point, and get out. The brevity of the cross implies to the jury your outright dismissal, almost contempt, of the weight of such testimony, and the doctor has said that the child is not necessarily telling the truth, and that some children make up stories. Their expert says that. The jury instruction helps cement the point. Incorporate the language used in the charge into your questions to make it seem to the jury that the judge agrees with you by using the same words in his final charge and the same cautionary instructions.  

Lastly, it is important that you read the jury charge first. It offers a wealth of topics for cross-examination, and with just a few questions you can turn that witness into your best summation argument. You do not want to undermine the witness.  Most importantly you want to use his/her credentials to prove your point.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

Office:   (908) 354-7006

Cell:     (201) 240-5716

Dated: November 18, 2013

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Criminal Lawyers Jersey City, Criminal Lawyers Elizabeth NJ, Criminal Lawyers Newark, Criminal Lawyers Bayonne, Criminal Lawyers Plainfield, Criminal Lawyers Union City, NJ, Criminal Lawyers Bergen County, Criminal Lawyers Bergen County, Criminal Lawyers Union County NJ, Criminal Lawyers Essex County, Criminal Lawyers Irvington, Criminal Lawyers New Brunswick

New Jersey Supreme Court refines State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 (1986), “the Gilmore Jury Preemptory Challenges”, in the recent case, State v. Andrews, ___ N.J. ____ (2013)

A public service Blog presented to the People by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq., 277 North Broad Street, Elizabeth, N.J. 07207 (908) 354-7006

In Andrews the Supreme Court held that the trial court in addressing whether the State or the Defense improperly uses a preemptory challenge to remove a juror based on race, the trial judge can be given more flexibility in fashioning a remedy.

Specifically,  in the Andrews case the trial court determined that the State had established a prima facie case that the defense had excluded a number of jurors based on race.  Accordingly, the burden shifted to the defense to give the court an articulable reason for the decision to eliminate the white juror.  When defense counsel could not give a reason for the decision to eliminate the juror, the trial court overruled the preemptory challenge of the defense and seated the juror. 

The defendant was convicted and appealed, arguing that the trial court exceeded its authority in seating that juror.  The appellate division agreed and held that based on Gilmore the trial court was constrained to discharge the entire panel and start anew with jury selections.

The high court disagreed and held that the Gilmore bright-line is unworkable, and that the trial court can be more flexible in remedying the situation. 

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that Gilmore is accordingly modified and that the trial court is permitted to do any of the following on a case-by-case basis:

1.      Dismissing the empanelled jury member(s) and the venire and beginning jury selection anew;

2.        Reseating the wrongfully excused juror(s), if these juror(s) are still available and not tainted by the preemptory challenge;

3.        Reseating the wrongfully excused juror(s) and ordering forfeiture by the offending party of his or her improperly exercised peremptory challenge(s);

4.        Permitting trial courts to require challenges to prospective jurors outside the presence of the jury; granting additional peremptory challenges to the aggrieved party;

5.        A combination of these remedies as the individual case requires. Every decision to invoke a remedy must assure a fair trial to all and elimination of the taint of discrimination.

From the prospective of this criminal defense attorney it appears that trial judges will now grant Gilmore applications more frequently based on the options now available to them.