The Dangers of Forensic Interviews in Child Sex Assault Cases

I recently had the pleasure of representing a young man accused of sexually assaulting his two half-sisters. It was alleged that he abused the girls when he was living with his biological father, mother-in-law, sister, and two half-sisters from when he was 16-19 years old. The girls were not yet teenagers. After a weeklong jury trial, he was found not guilty of all 10 charges – charges which exposed him to up to life in prison if convicted.

What happened in this case is very common in cases of alleged sexual abuse of a child – in this case, a “forensic interviewer” interviews the alleged victim. The alleged victims were 14 and 17 when they were interviewed. In this case, as in every sexual assault case I have had involving a person under 16, the bias of the forensic interview in questioning the alleged victim was painfully clear in both the forensic interview and the testimony of the forensic interviewer.

First, in the county where the trial occurred, the interviews took place at the Children’s Advocacy Center. As the forensic interviewer admitted during cross-examination, the literature from that center tells parents that they should let the “child” know that the parent believes the disclosure about alleged abuse. It was clear from cross-examination that the interviewer goes into a Forensic Interview with the mindset of making the alleged victim believe that the allegations are not doubted.

The danger of the mindsight of going into a forensic interview with such bias is obvious – and is what happened in this case. The forensic interviewer did not follow-up on allegations that made no sense, conflicted with other evidence, and that were inconsistent. This is done on purpose – the mindsight of many forensic interviewers, and prosecuting attorneys follows the “See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil” mindsight. What they don’t question, they do not have to follow-up on. This prevents the possibility of discovering exculpatory evidence that would be disclosed to the defense. The mindsight is clear – “why let the truth get in the way of a prosecution”.

The forensic interviewer in this case also demonstrated her bias in discussing her role in the process. She chose her words carefully during direct examination by the prosecution. Her words were that she gets involved in cases of suspected abuse or neglect. Those words were chosen carefully to persuade the jury that she would not have been involved unless there was EVIDENCE of abuse or neglect. That is just wrong, false, and misleading. As she admitted on cross-examination, she gets involved when there is an ALLEGATION of abuse or neglect. Had the interviewer truly been unbiased, the initial response would have been clear – she gets involved when there is an ALLEGATION of abuse or neglect.

The bias exhibited in this case was not unique from bias exhibited in other of the many sexual assault cases I have defended. It simply reiterates the importance of properly preparing to cross-examine forensic examiners in these cases and understanding the bias that is ingrained in their training and practice.