Fred Sisto | Criminal Attorney | Ocean and Monmouth County

Call Us Today
732-898-3232

  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    ▼
    • Drug Crimes
      ▼
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      ▼
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      ▼
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      ▼
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    ▼
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      ▼
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    ▼
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    • Drug Crimes
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
Home >> Reliability of CSAAS Testimony (Part 6)

October 10, 2018 by Fred Sisto

Reliability of CSAAS Testimony (Part 6)

The Court also observed that there does not appear to be a consensus among the experts, or in the scientific literature, on the subject of false denials.  To assess the reliability prong of N.J.R.E. 702, the Court considers whether CSAAS has achieved general acceptance in the scientific community.  The evidence presented at the remand hearing answers that question.  Judge Bariso found that there is consensus for only one type of behavior — delayed disclosure.  The Court agrees.  Because evidence about CSAAS as a whole and the other four categories does not satisfy the Frye standard, experts may not present evidence on those topics at trial.  When the other prongs of Rule 702 are met, the State may present expert evidence on delayed disclosure among victims of child sexual abuse — and only that evidence — to a jury.  When expert evidence on delay is introduced, trial courts should provide limiting instructions to the jury — both before an expert witness testifies and as part of the court’s final charge.  The Court asks the Committee on Model Criminal Jury Charges to draft appropriate instructions limited to delayed disclosure as soon as practicable.  The Court also invites the parties and amici to submit proposed charges to the Committee and provides guidance about the charge.

Proponents of expert evidence on delayed disclosure must satisfy all three parts of Rule 702, including that the testimony concerns a subject beyond the ken of the average juror.  Expert testimony is not appropriate to explain what a jury can understand by itself.  By contrast, issues that are beyond the understanding of the average juror may call for expert evidence.  Trial judges, as gatekeepers, decide that threshold question.  Whether a victim’s delayed disclosure is beyond the ken of the average juror will depend on the facts of the case.  In this case, no juror needed help from an expert to understand and evaluate Bonnie’s testimony.

Applying the above findings to this case, it was error to admit testimony about CSAAS — both as to the theory in general and the behaviors that are not generally accepted by the scientific community.  There are also serious concerns about the admissibility of expert testimony on delayed disclosure in this case because Bonnie, a teenager, gave reasons for the delay that were not beyond the ken of the average juror.  Nonetheless, those errors are harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.  In light of the evidence presented — in particular, the testimony of the victim combined with a graphic audio recording of an act of sexual abuse — there is not a sufficient possibility that the admission of CSAAS evidence led the jury to an unjust verdict or one it might otherwise not have reached as to Counts One and Two.  During closing argument, defense counsel conceded that there was sufficient evidence to support Count Three.  Finally, the CSAAS evidence had little if any bearing on the witness tampering charge.  The admission of the CSAAS evidence in this case was harmless. This includes defendants in and out of prison. Those who are not in prison will still be motivated to get out from under the onerous requirements of Megan’s Law.

Filed Under: Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

Testimonials

Fred is a stickler for detail and communicates with clients very, very well. He is smart and astute. I would recommend him unconditionally.

Tom O   

I would highly recommend Mr. Sisto. He is very insightful and proficient, yet still down to Earth. Fred is great at communicating and breaking down the facts. But most importantly, he excels at getting results.

Bill K   

Thanks to Fred I have no criminal record whatsoever.

Luke A   

Great!!! , got my case handled in the exact manner that I was told and would recommend to everyone else in need of legal representation.

Raumelis R   
See More Testimonials

Recent Posts

  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 4)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 3)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 2)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 1)
  • Jurisdiction and Subsequent Prosecutions (Part 2)
  • Jurisdiction and Subsequent Prosecutions (Part 1)
  • Statutes of Limitations and DNA Evidence (Part 3)
  • Statutes of Limitations and DNA Evidence (Part 2)

Recent Speaking Engagement

Site Disclaimer

Attorney Referral Fees

Frederick P Sisto has earned Lawyer Legion's recognition for Community Leadership
 
Top Criminal Defense Attorney in Brick

Law Office of Frederick P. Sisto

Point Pleasant Office*:
302 Hawthorne Ave, Suite 1
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742

Brick Township Office*:
223 Drum Point Road, Suite 1
Brick Township, NJ 08723

Sea Girt Office*:
2150 NJ-35,
Suite 225
Sea Girt, NJ 08750

Phone: 732-898-3232
Fax: 201-508-3393
*Office visits by appointment only.

Representing clients throughout all court jurisdictions of New Jersey.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION, NO ASPECT OF THIS ADVERTISEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

en English
en Englishes Spanish