The Colorado Lawyer / August 2006 / Vol. 35, No. 8 / 65 M ore than 100,000 child sexual abuse (“CSA”) cases are inves- tigated and substantiated in the United States each year. 1 Substanti- ated CSA cases are brought to the atten- tion of prosecutors, who determine whether to move forward with prosecu- tion. The jurors who hear these cases may have misconceptions about eyewit- ness testimony and the effects of sexual abuse on children and, in many in- stances, their perceptions are influenced by expert testimony. Expert witnesses in CSA cases often are psychologists testifying as clinicians, scientists, or both. As in any trial, in a CSA case, the court is obligated to admit only expert testimony that is: (1) based on a reliable methodology; (2) appropri- ately qualified; and (3) useful to the ju- ry. 2 As is common in many types of tri- als, a battle of the experts often ensues. When psychologists testify as expert witnesses, they often present differing assessments of the evidence because: (1) standards of proof vary between clinical practice and the scientific method; and (2) psychologists often are asked to go beyond the data to provide opinions. This also is the case when the field of forensic psychology is involved, because forensic psychology has not yet devel- oped the diagnostic capabilities often hoped for by litigants. In many CSA cas- es, there are nuances in the body of data that simultaneously support the prose- cution and the defense. Thus, even as- suming that scientists will always make the same conclusions about the same body of data (an untenable assumption), there often are aspects of the data that are useful to both sides of a case. In addition to providing a background on child witnesses, this article examines three areas of research on child witness- es relevant to CSA cases and discusses how that data support both the defense and the prosecution. These three areas are: (1) children’s memory; (2) children’s suggestibility; and (3) diagnosing abuse. Readers who are interested in a more thorough treatment of child witness is- sues in their full breadth might wish to review additional resources that provide an overview of issues related to child witnesses. 3 Child Witnesses: Background Most children who testify in criminal court are doing so about alleged activi- ties perpetrated on them; in many cases, they are testifying about alleged sexual abuse. The primary reason for this is not that children fail to witness other crimes, but because generally they are not ideal witnesses. Also, for some chil- dren, the process of investigative inter- viewing may be perceived as an extra stressor to be avoided when possible. When children are not the victim of a crime, such as in a property or drug case, CRIMINAL LAW Using Experts to Aid Jurors in Assessing Child Witness Credibility Article Editors: Leonard Frieling, a criminal defense attorney in private practice, Boulder— (303) 666-4064, lfrieling@lfrieling. com; and Morris Hoffman, a judge for the Second Judicial District Court, Denver About The Authors: This month’s article was written by Livia L. Gilstrap, Colorado Springs, Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Colorado at Colo- rado Springs—gilstrap@uccs.edu; and Michael P. McHenry, Colorado Springs, an attorney with the Colo- rado State Public Defender’s Office— michael.mchenry@state.co.us. by Livia L. Gilstrap and Michael P. McHenry This article addresses the admissibility of expert testimony related to issues surrounding child witnesses. It also pro- vides an overview of the scientific literature regarding chil- dren’s memory and suggestibility, as well as the limits of ex- perts’ ability to determine whether sexual abuse has oc- curred. Criminal Law articles are sponsored by the CBA Criminal Law Section and generally are written by prose- cutors, defense lawyers, and judges to provide information about case law, legislation, and advocacy affect- ing the prosecution, defense, and administration of criminal cases in Colorado state and federal courts. Reproduced by permission. © 2006 Colorado Bar Association, 35 The Colorado Lawyer 65 (August 2006). All rights reserved.