Abstract

This article examines the effect of freshly-revived-memory evidence on the tolling of statutes of limitations in civil and criminal cases involving adult victims of childhood sexual abuse. Specifically, the author criticizes the application of the discovery rule, which may operate to toll the statute of limitations for many years after the alleged incident(s), to cases in which recently revived memories of childhood sexual abuse constitute the only evidence of such abuse. Arguing that these memories may be falsely implanted or encouraged by mental health professionals without regard for their accuracy, the author would require corroborating evidence of abuse in order to justify the application of the discovery rule in such cases.

Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.