Abstract
Child sexual abuse (CSA) cases involving recantation invoke concerns about children’s reliability. Expert testimony can help explain the complexities of these cases. Experts have historically relied on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), yet this is not science-based. In a CSA case involving recantation, how would evidence-based testimony affect perceptions of child credibility when compared to CSAAS? Across 2 studies, we test the effects of expert testimony based on evidence-based science, nonscientific evidence, and experience-based evidence on outcomes in CSA cases involving recantation. Evidence-based testimony led to higher perceptions of credibility and scientific rigor of the evidence when compared to CSAAS testimony. Evidence-based testimony also led to more guilty verdicts when compared to the control. In sum, jurors had some ability to detect evidence strength, such that evidence-based expert testimony was superior to CSAAS testimony in many respects, and consistently superior to experience-based testimony in these cases.
Highlights
In a 2015 Kentucky court case, a youth minister was charged with first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual assault of a child
Experts have historically relied on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), yet this is not science-based
In a Child sexual abuse (CSA) case involving recantation, how would evidence-based testimony affect perceptions of child credibility when compared to CSAAS? Across 2 studies, we test the effects of expert testimony based on evidence-based science, nonscientific evidence, and experience-based evidence on outcomes in CSA cases involving recantation
Summary
In a 2015 Kentucky court case, a youth minister was charged with first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual assault of a child. The child did not immediately disclose the assault to his mother, but instead waited 5 days. A detective was brought in as an expert witness and testified regarding Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), arguing that delayed disclosure did not suggest a report is unreliable. The jury convicted the defendant on all charges. The defendant appealed the use of CSAAS, and upon review the CSAAS expert testimony evidence was not found to meet the rigorous legal criteria of admissible evidence [1, 2]. CSAAS evidence was ruled no longer admissible as evidence in New Jersey courts when used to support denial of abuse or recantation [3]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
