Prosecutors and the child saving industry have convinced the legislature that merely creating hysteria is not enough to insure conviction for those accused. In addition, rights originally created in our constitution to protect the criminal defendants must be eliminated.
The Rules to Have Changed to Secure Convictions in Child Sex Crimes
"*" indicates required fields
All across our nation, state legislatures have supported child advocacy special interest groups. The following illustrates how constitutional rights have been taken away in child sexual assault trials:
No Right to Confront Your Accuser
Criminal law codes have been rewritten to where in many cases, the child accuser doesn’t have to appear in court and face the accused. Instead, the state can offer the child’s testimony through a video tape made by agents of the prosecution.
“Hearsay Evidence”
Hearsay is defined as
a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (Tex. Rules. Evid. 803 (2)).
In Layman’s terms, “Hearsay” evidence is when a witness testifies about something they don’t personally know, but were told by someone else.
Hearsay is considered unreliable and is normally inadmissible as evidence against an accused. In child abuse cases however, hearsay evidence is admitted as evidence of guilt. A so called “outcry” witness can testify as to what a child supposedly said to them regarding the alleged abuse.
“Syndrome Evidence” is Admissible Against the Accused
In most states, the prosecution can have an expert witness testify that the child is suffering from “Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome” (CSAAS). This psychological “mumble jumble” is an unscientific theory of supposed traits of abused children.
The psychologist who came up with this syndrome many years ago has since indicated that this theory isn’t reliable evidence in a court of law. Prosecutors don’t care! This junk science makes its appearance in courtrooms across the country daily including Texas.
With Syndrome Evidence, the State Replaces its Lack of Real Proof with Speculation
CSAAS theorizes that because an alleged victim is supposedly demonstrating certain behavioral patterns that they must have actually been abused. Unfortunately, a big problem with this and other syndromes is that the character traits offered to show abuse are also common for non-abused children. If the child has been crying, they must have been abused. If the child has nightmares, they must have been abused. If the child is withdrawn, they must have been abused.
If the child is outgoing, they must have been abused. If the child is happy around the accused, it’s because the child enjoyed the abuse. The list of factors goes on forever. But to a jury, when an expert witness is connecting typical childhood behavior with indicators of abuse, the testimony is extremely damaging to the falsely accused.
Convictions without Physical Evidence in Child Molestation Cases
Our prisons are full of persons who have been convicted of Child Molestation without any physical evidence ever introduced against them at trial. In other words, the typical evidence in which the state offers to convict a defendant, such as body fluids, blood, semen, hair, DNA, aren’t introduced at trial to link the accused to a crime.
Medical nurses and employees whose livelihoods depend upon their contracts with child advocacy centers will give opinions that a child was abused. Failure to give the right opinion will mean the contract isn’t renewed. These opinions from medical “experts” will say the findings are “consistent with” child sexual abuse.
Of course, “consistent with” isn’t a true medical diagnosis. This testimony, as demonstrated by a competent Sex Crimes Attorney will reveal the findings given as “consistent with abuse” are just as “inconsistent with abuse”.
Prosecutors Secure Convictions by Manipulating the Juries’ Fear of Releasing a Child Molester Back Into the Community
Instead of physical and medical evidence, the falsely accused are convicted upon theories, inferences, and speculation. Prosecutors secure convictions by manipulating the juror’s fear of releasing a child molester back into the community. This fear will be combined with hearsay, expert witness “syndrome evidence”, misleading medical testimony, and the biased opinions of child advocacy investigators.
To support this speculation, a biased Child Protective Services caseworker will produce a videotaped interview of the child. This biased interviewer will use leading, suggestive, and coached questions to easily obtain an “admission” from a child. Many times the child doesn’t make a statement that abuse occurred, but merely agrees with the adult authority figure who informs the child of the abuse.
After an outcry, it’s easy to find witnesses who can place the accused in circumstances in which they were alone with the alleged victim.
The system isn’t on your side.
At Dunham & Jones, Attorneys at Law, we believe in your innocence. Call us today at 800-499-8455 for a free evaluation of your case with a Sex Crimes Attorney who has experience in fighting charges of Child Abuse or Child Sex Crimes in Texas.
