Sexual Assault Trials Research Articles

Effect of criminal defendant's history of childhood sexual abuse and personality disorder diagnosis on juror decision making.

This study investigated whether a defendant's history of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) and/or personality disorder (PD) diagnosis affected juror decision making in a child sexual abuse trial. The PDs in the study were borderline PD and antisocial PD. Participants were 385 college students, 121 men and 264 women, who read a summary of a mock criminal trial and then made various juror decisions. Trial summaries were prepared by the principal investigator and were all uniform in content, length and detail. For the trial, both the defendant's gender and victim's gender were specified. The defendant was male, and the alleged victim was female. When the verdict was assessed, the results yielded that when the defendant's CSA history was presented, juror guilt ratings were higher than when there was no history of CSA. Similarly, when the defendant had a PD diagnosis, there were higher guilt ratings than when there was no PD diagnosis. CSA history and PD diagnosis were significant predictors of guilt ratings, suggesting that jurors perceive defendants more negatively if they have either been sexually abused as a child or have borderline or antisocial PD.

Prejudice Unveiled: The Niqab in Court–

Abstract The public use of the niqab and other religious face coverings is a source of considerable debate in Western nations. The veiled Muslim woman is often constructed as “other,” reviled as backward, represented as in need of rescue, or associated with Islamic extremism. Despite widespread racist attitudes, officially, Canadians purport to support multiculturalism and the equality of all people under the law as guaranteed under section 15 of the Charter. In a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, R v NS, the Court had to consider the right of a Muslim woman to wear her niqab while testifying in a sexual assault trial. In “balancing” the conflict between the religious rights of NS and the section 7 rights of the accused to a full and fair defense, the Court ignored the security of the person and equality rights of NS. The Court instead legitimated anti-Muslim stereotypes and reiterated rape myths that had ostensibly been overturned.

Prediction of Jury Verdicts in Child Sexual Assault Trials

Child sexual abuse allegations are typically resolved by jury trial. The presence of a number of variables, known before a trial commences, may play a significant part in trial outcomes beyond jurors’ assessment of witness credibility. New Zealand Crown Prosecutors completed survey questionnaires for 137 trials related to charges of sexual offending against children. Nine trial variables were recorded along with other trial data. The hypothesis was confirmed that the presence of any three or more of the nine evidential variables was significantly predictive of conviction on at least one sexual offence per trial. The results were similar for the total sample and the two subgroups of historical cases and the child cases with complainants aged younger than 17 years at the time of trial. The three variables most strongly associated with conviction were similar fact evidence, evidence from a witness to the offending, and positive medical evidence or DNA evidence.

Expert Testimony Influences Juror Decisions in Criminal Trials Involving Recovered Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse

We examined the impact of expert witness orientation (researcher or clinical practitioner) and type of testimony (testimony for the prosecution, defense, both prosecution and defense, or no testimony) on mock jurors’ decisions in a sexual abuse trial. Participants acted as mock jurors on a sexual abuse criminal trial based on recovered memory that included expert witness testimony. Results showed that expert witness testimony provided by a researcher did not impact mock jurors’ guilt ratings any differently than the expert witness testimony provided by a clinical practitioner. However, type of testimony had a significant effect on jurors’ guilt ratings such that jurors who read only defense or only prosecution testimony made decisions favoring the relevant side.

Counterintuitive Expert Psychological Evidence in Child Sexual Abuse Trials in New Zealand

The Evidence Act 2006 came into law in New Zealand in 2007. Among the many reforms was an amendment to the law pertaining to expert opinion evidence. In keeping with other jurisdictions, New Zealand adopted the “substantial helpfulness” test in relation to the admissibility of expert evidence. Since 2008, the courts have regularly admitted what has been termed “counterintuitive” expert psychological evidence in child sexual abuse trials, and appellate courts have upheld the use of this evidence. Such evidence has the purpose of educating juries, with particular reference to commonly held misconceptions about child sexual abuse. We discuss what is meant by the term counterintuitive evidence, why such evidence has been deemed helpful and the types of counterintuitive evidence currently given by psychologist expert witnesses in the New Zealand courts.

Prosecutors’ perceptions of the utility of ‘relationship’ evidence in sexual abuse trials

For successful prosecution of sex offences, defined elements that comprise each charge (such as the acts that occurred and offenders’ identities) need to be established beyond reasonable doubt. This study explored the potential benefit (from a prosecution perspective) of eliciting another type of evidence; evidence regarding the relationship between the victim and perpetrator that may explain the victim’s responses. Fourteen prosecutors representing every major Australian jurisdiction participated in individual interviews or a focus group where they were asked to reflect on the perceived relevance of relationship evidence in sex offence trials, and the potential impact of this evidence on court process and outcomes. All prosecutors gave strong support for the premise of including relationship evidence in victim and witness statements, as well as in suspect interviews; however, this type of evidence was not routinely being included in interviews or admitted in trials. The majority of the discussion centred on: (a) the benefits and prevalence of eliciting relationship evidence; (b) how relationship evidence is best elicited in police interviews; and (c) challenges in presenting relationship evidence at trial. Each of these areas, their practical implications and directions for future research are briefly discussed.

Sexual Assault and Disability: Saskatchewan, 1942

Beatrice Irene Tisdale was a deaf woman who was born in Saskatchewan in 1918. In August 1942, an acquaintance drove Ms. Tisdale to a secluded area and raped her. This article discusses the sexual assault trial of Joseph Probe. The court's inability to accommodate Beatrice Tisdale's language of testimony, and legal professionals' attitude toward the “inconvenience” of the special barriers in this trial, made it impossible for the complainant to fairly and fully share her experience. The court was preoccupied with whether Ms. Tisdale had communicated non-consent in a way a hearing man could understand, and whether she adequately physically resisted the assault. No one inquired about whether Joseph Probe took proper steps to seek consent from a deaf woman, and no one raised doubts as to whether the complainant and accused could clearly communicate with each other during their acquaintanceship. The trial court and Court of Appeal grappled with the unclear language of the Criminal Code which contained an offence known as “unlawful carnal knowledge of a deaf and dumb woman”. While the Court of Appeal correctly discerned that deaf women were mentally capable of consenting, the judge failed to address the particular vulnerability of deaf women. Joseph Probe was acquitted. This is one of many trials where Canadian courts failed to ensure full and fair involvement of deaf persons in the legal process.

Validation of the factor structure and predictive validity of the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale for robbery and sexual assault trial scenarios

In order to investigate the role of pre-trial attitudes about forensic science in juror decision-making, a previous study demonstrated the predictive validity of the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale (FEEBS), using a murder trial scenario, which featured ambiguous prosecution DNA evidence. The current study validates the FEEBS using two new crime types and the conditions include a manipulation of the presence of DNA evidence in the trial scenario. The FEEBS successfully predicted mock jurors' perceptions of the probative value of DNA evidence for both robbery and sexual assault trials. The two subscales of the FEEBS were demonstrated to have different predictive ability depending on the presence or absence of DNA evidence. A confirmatory factor analytic technique was used to validate the underlying two-factor structure of the FEEBS, as previously proposed. These results are discussed with reference to the CSI Effect literature, and the potential for improvement to less empirically supported voir dire questioning techniques.

Mock juror sensitivity to forensic evidence in drug facilitated sexual assaults

Mock jurors' reactions to variations in the quality of toxicological evidence regarding the presence of drugs in a sexual assault trial were examined. In Study 1, participants received a trial summary in which a negative test result, a negative test result plus expert testimony, or no test result was presented. The time taken by the complainant to report the alleged sexual assault was manipulated. The negative test result influenced participants' judgments, but this effect was minimized by the presence of expert testimony. The complainant's delay in reporting had little impact on judgments. In Study 2, complainant time to report was again manipulated along with the outcome of the test result (negative finding and no result). Results revealed that men were less conviction prone when the negative test result was obtained early as opposed to late. In contrast, when the test result was unavailable, men were more conviction prone when the complainant reported late as oppose to early.

Expert Witness Evidence in Sexual Assault Trials: Questions, Answers and Law Reform in Australia and England

A review of the psychological literature shows that jury-eligible citizens rely on a range of misconceptions based on victim and gender stereotypes when assessing the credibility of sexual assault complainants and rendering verdicts. Since these misconceptions are likely to account for the high attrition and low conviction rates in sexual assault trials in both England and Australia, this article investigates whether or not educative information ought to be admitted in these trials via an expert witness or a judicial direction. It also investigates the type of expert evidence that would be admissible in an adversarial context and the legislative models for doing so, based on Australian reforms. The article concludes by making four recommendations for reform to the laws of evidence in Australia, England and Wales.

Observing Court Responses to Victims of Rape and Sexual Assault

Despite years of policy reform in England and Wales, court responses to rape and sexual assault victims remain inadequate. Existing literature often relies on interviews, is outdated by policy, or ignores underlying assumptions. This study therefore observed rape and sexual assault trials, identifying underlying assumptions using critical discourse analysis (CDA). The main themes that arose were routine delays, notions of “rational” behavior, extreme interpretations of “beyond reasonable doubt” (BRD) and “burden of proof,” and winning as priority. These highlight the need to move beyond prioritizing shorter term change and begin addressing the fundamental inadequacies of court responses to rape and sexual assault victims.

Behind the Veil of Juror Decision Making

Recent case law has considered whether a Muslim woman who wishes to appear in court should be allowed to testify wearing a veil that covers part of her face (e.g., Muhammad v. Paruk, 2008, in the United States, R. v. N.S., 2009, in Canada). The current research sought to test the influence of a victim’s wearing of a veil while testifying on juror decision making in a sexual assault trial. In addition, the study tested for effects of defendant race using Middle Eastern and Caucasian as the target races, given that there is a paucity of research comparing these races in the juror decision-making literature. Results demonstrated that contrary to hypotheses, jurors were more convinced of the defendant’s guilt when the victim was wearing a burqa or hijab to testify than when she testified wearing no veil. Defendant race did not have an effect on any of the dependent variables in this research; however, mock juror gender was found to be influential. Potential reasons for these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Newspaper Reports Constructing Allegations and Responsibilities in the Pitcairn Island Sexual Abuse Trials

The Pitcairn sexual abuse trial was widely reported in New Zealand newspapers and this study examines constructions of both allegations and explanations of sexual abuse. Discourse analysis was used to study a database of 76 reports from the Dominion Post and New Zealand Herald. The analysis identified three discourses that co-articulate allegations of sexual abuse and attempts to explain and account for these allegations. The first discourse deals with reported allegations of childhood sexual abuse and trauma. The second discourse deflects responsibility from the accused men and lays open explanations drawing on the history and culture of Pitcairn. The third discourse constructs abuse as something that occurred because Britain failed to meet its responsibilities and provide adequate legal and moral guidance. These discourses are discussed in terms of the actions they perform in terms of reducing the level of personal responsibility for crimes of sexual abuse.

A comparison of expert evidence and judicial directions to counter misconceptions in child sexual abuse trials

Studies on the influence of expert evidence and judicial instructions in child sexual abuse (CSA) cases have produced mixed outcomes. Using repeated measures, we tested the effectiveness of expert evidence and judicial directions in challenging common misconceptions about children’s memory and responses to sexual abuse. A CSA Misconceptions Questionnaire was administered to 118 psychology undergraduates who later served as virtual jurors in a simulated criminal trial. Specialized CSA knowledge was provided by a psychologist or via judicial directions. Expert evidence had two levels: clinical versus scientific testimony. Timing of judicial instructions had two levels: directions presented before the child testified versus during the judge’s summing up. In a fifth control condition, no specialized CSA information was included. After reading a trial transcript, mock-jurors assessed witness credibility, rendered verdicts and again completed the CSA Misconceptions Questionnaire. All four interventions significantly increased jurors’ CSA knowledge. The more they knew, the more likely they were to convict. Perceived victim credibility fully mediated the effect of CSA knowledge on verdict: information presented via expert testimony or judicial directions enhanced perceptions of victim credibility, which in turn increased convictions. Conviction rates were significantly higher in response to expert testimony from a clinical psychologist and a judicial instruction provided in the trial summation. These results are promising for courts and policy-makers grappling with low conviction rates in CSA jury trials.

The Effects of Evidence, Coherence and Credentials on Jury Decision-Making in Child Sexual Abuse Trials

Expert testimony is being used increasingly in child sexual assault cases. This study extended a prior study that examined factors related to expert testimony (evidence strength, coherence and credentials of the expert) on ratings of guilt and overall verdict. Specifically, we replicated our prior study but with two modifications: we used community samples as opposed to university students, and participants made their decisions in groups of 12 (as in the case of juries where one decision represents the overall group) rather than having participants decide and submit their verdicts and guilt ratings individually. Consistent with the prior (less ecologically valid) study, credentials of the expert had negligible impact. Evidence that was high in strength elicited a relatively high guilt rating even when the testimony was low in coherence. Further, it appears that when participants deliberate in a group (as in the case of juries) they are more conservative in their judgements (i.e., they are less likely to give a guilty verdict) compared to individual jurors who make their decisions alone. These findings suggest that caution must be exercised when drawing conclusions about the generalisability of prior research findings where participants did not engage in group deliberation.

Enhancing the credibility of complainants in child sexual assault trials: The effect of expert evidence and judicial directions

This study investigated the knowledge and misconceptions of jury-eligible citizens about children's reliability as witnesses and responses to child sexual assault (CSA), and examined the influence of expert evidence and judicial directions in challenging common misconceptions. Community volunteers (N = 130) read one of five versions of a simulated jury trial, and completed a pre- and post-trial questionnaire to provide measures of their knowledge of children's responses to sexual abuse, perceptions of victim credibility, and verdict. Results revealed that endorsement of CSA misconceptions negatively impacted ratings of complainant credibility and verdicts. Judicial directions provided before the child complainant testified enhanced complainant credibility, which in turn predicted guilty verdicts. Comparisons of the effectiveness of two procedural legal mechanisms to manage juror misconceptions and improve knowledge about CSA provide guidance for future researchers investigating ways to increase fairness in cases of CSA.

Uncertainty and Misconceptions About Child Sexual Abuse: Implications for the Criminal Justice System

Recent amendments to the uniform evidence legislation in Australia mean that it will be possible for prosecutors to call expert opinion evidence to bolster the credibility of child complainants in child sexual assault (CSA) trials. Yet little is known about the extent of the common beliefs and misconceptions in the Australian population about child sexual abuse and the degree of discord between their beliefs and what the research literature shows. A survey investigated the knowledge and misconceptions of 659 laypeople about children's memory, reliability, suggestibility and children's responses to sexual abuse, and explored demographic differences in child sexual abuse misconceptions in an Australian jury-eligible sample. Reported here are the first published results on the perceptions and beliefs of Australian citizens regarding factors that influence the outcomes in CSA cases. An important contribution was significant findings of extensive uncertainty regarding these topics. Results showed that gender, age and educational attainment were associated with the endorsement of misconceptions about CSA cases. Topics that expert evidence can address to remedy these knowledge deficits were identified.

Understanding Children's Medium for Disclosing Sexual Abuse: A Tool for Overcoming Potential Misconceptions in the Courtroom

Complainants in child sexual assault trials are often questioned by the defence about disclosure of the alleged abuse. The defence will often ask the child how they disclosed the alleged sexual abuse, including to whom the initial disclosure was made. Such questions are legitimate and directed towards testing the complainant's allegations. Sometimes, such questions are used to impeach the complainant's credibility. It is not uncommon in such instances for the defence to suggest that certain modes of disclosure are more consistent with having been sexually victimized and that a complainant who has disclosed otherwise is more likely to have fabricated the allegations of abuse. This article reviews the findings of empirical research on whom victims of child sexual abuse most commonly disclose their abuse to and by what means such disclosure is commonly made. This understanding is important to challenge misconceived views about how victims disclose child sexual abuse.

Of ‘Normal Sex’ and ‘Real Rape’: Exploring The Use of Socio-Sexual Scripts in (Mock) Jury Deliberation

This article explores a series of 27 jury deliberations, undertaken by volunteer members of the public, following their observation of a mini-rape trial reconstruction. While research with ‘real’ jurors is prohibited in England and Wales, previous social attitude and experimental studies have suggested that jurors in sexual assault trials may well be influenced by dubious stereotypes about rape, rapists and rape victims. In this article, the authors explore the relationship between these (mis)conceptions about rape and public expectations regarding socio-sexual conduct more broadly. The authors examine the scripts that were invoked, defended and relied upon by mock jurors in order to distinguish ‘normal’ (hetero)sexual seduction from rape. More specifically, this article explores participants’ expectations (both descriptive and normative) in relation to the communication of consent, the role of male initiative, and the location, timing of and parties to sexual intercourse, as well as the relevance of the use of physical force, the fact of the parties’ drunkenness or the nature of their respective post-coital conduct.

Uncertainty and the Search for Truth at Trial: Defining Prosecutorial 'Objectivity' in German Sexual Assault Cases

According to German legal scholar, Claus Roxin, German prosecutors are the 'most objective civil servants' in the world. Roxin’s assessment of German prosecution practice reflects the conviction of many German legal scholars that prosecutors in Germany’s inquisitorial system function as second judges dedicated to finding the objective “truth.” In this paper I investigate how prosecutors “translate” the normative duty of objectivity enshrined in the German penal code into observable practices on the ground. I examine prosecutorial decision-making in three sexual assault trials. Sexual assault cases pose unique challenges to prosecutors as well as to the definition of objectivity. Because the crime typically occurs in private, the search for truth often focuses on the testimony of the victim and the suspect. In cases in which the physical evidence is inconclusive and the defendant claims that the victim consented, the focus of the fact finder’s inquiry is often directed at the victim’s credibility. Drawing on transcript and interview data, I propose three models or “faces” of prosecutorial “objectivity.” Surprisingly, despite the fact that judges structure the presentation of evidence in German trials, prosecutors play a critical role in “interpreting” the facts presented at trial. In each of the cases examined in this paper, the face of objectivity is constructed through a relational process that unfolds between the presiding judge and the trail prosecutor. Although many legal scholars maintain that penal code sharply circumscribes prosecutorial discretion in major crime cases in Germany, my research demonstrates that a wide variation exists in the way that individual prosecutors interpret their duty to view the evidence objectively.