Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

4 child sex abuse convictions tossed over disputed theory

A New Jersey appeals court has reversed four child sex abuse convictions in which experts testified about a now-disputed theory.

The state has estimated at least 40 more cases could be affected, according to the appeals court.
The state has estimated at least 40 more cases could be affected, according to the appeals court.Read moreiStockphoto

NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — A 2018 state Supreme Court ruling that cast doubt on a theory of child sexual abuse can be used retroactively to reconsider potentially dozens of previous convictions, an appeals court ruled Wednesday in throwing out four such convictions.

The Supreme Court's ruling last August in the case of a defendant identified by the initials J.L.G. limited prosecutors' use of child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome, a theory developed in the 1980s that seeks to explain behaviors among alleged victims. Those behaviors include feelings of helplessness, keeping the abuse secret and recanting allegations about abuse after they're made.

The Supreme Court concluded that not all aspects of the theory are well-defined or scientifically proven, and that expert testimony about those aspects should not be introduced as evidence. Prosecutors can present expert testimony on delayed disclosure of abuse, providing a jury is given specific instructions about the testimony.

J.L.G.'s conviction wasn't reversed, as the Supreme Court concluded it was based on overwhelming evidence unrelated to the expert testimony.

The four defendants whose convictions were reversed Wednesday each had filed appeals by the time of the J.L.G. ruling. The state has estimated at least 40 more cases could be affected, according to the appeals court.

Courts can apply a new ruling retroactively by weighing certain factors, including the effect on the court system and whether it raises serious questions about the accuracy of previous guilty verdicts.

It was appropriate in this case, the three-judge panel wrote, "because it would afford defendants relief from unfair convictions, while not unduly burdening the criminal justice system.

"These cases demonstrate the risk, even before J.L.G., that CSAAS testimony could impair the fact-finding process, and unfairly tip the balance against a defendant charged with sexual assault of a child."

The panel reasoned that if a jury hears expert testimony that “delayed disclosure, inconsistent statements, and retraction may be behaviors exhibited by a truthful child sex abuse victim,” defense attorneys are hampered in their ability to test a victim’s credibility on cross-examination and defendants’ right to confront their accusers is undermined.