BURLINGTON, VT – At an evidentiary hearing regarding the trustworthiness of the complaining witness’s testimony last Thursday in Chittenden County Superior Court, Deputy Public Defender Sandra Lee called an expert witness to review statements by the complaining witness.
The expert said he found the complaining witness, a child, was in a highly pressured situation by their mother, in which the mother took charge of interviews and that interviewers violated forensic practices by NACA standards, which, the expert said made the evidence untrustworthy.
The accused is being tried for sexual assault with a victim of less than 13 years. As noted by Judge Kevin Griffin, the case is currently two and a half years old.
The incident, according to witness testimony, involved an alleged sexual assault that occurred multiple times when the complaining witness was approximately eight years old. The accusation was made when the witness was 12 years old, after being questioned by their mother.
When looking at the circumstances of when this accusation was made, it was noted by Dr. (no first name available) Mandell that the child was under a highly pressured situation with the adults in their life, explaining their mother had noticed sexual behaviors and content on the complaining witness’s phone, much of which was same-sex oriented.
Dr. Mandell said he believed that the further questioning of the mother, including asking their child if they had been touched, was the mother searching for external causes for their child’s sexual interests.
Dr. Mandell stated this was “not a spontaneous disclosure” and believed the mother “…took a pathologizing approach” when questioning the child, adding there were multiple instances where there was a “clear violation of forensic practices.”
During the first interview with an officer, the mother and child were interviewed together. It was stated by Dr. Mandell when reviewing this evidence, that the mother was eager to present information herself and “took charge” of the interview.
Dr. Mandell stated that because of this, it calls into question whether this is the child’s memory, or a repetition of statements the mother made.
Dr. Mandell discussed NCAC standards (national child advocacy center), which details forensic interview protocol, noting this is the protocol in Vermont and he is trained in it.
Dr. Mandell explained some of the NCAC standards were met, such as holding the interview in a child-friendly setting, video recording of the interview, and preparation of the child for substantive questions.
However, not all the NCAC standards were met, causing the interviewers to not properly investigate the allegation, said Dr. Mandell.
Dr. Mandell explained how interviewers should ask open-ended and broad questions. This helps, he argued, allow the child to use vocabulary that originated with themselves and can aid in providing sufficient detail about the alleged event.
Dr. Mandell noted “14 times” in which a detective interviewer asked leading and multiple choice questions. This caused responses by the complaining witness that mimicked responses and repeated the identical language used by the detective.
Dr. Mandell also said only one sensory question was asked, when it is typical for multiple to be asked in alignment with the NACA protocol to explore the witness’s memory, provide additional information, and help in corroborating the experience.
Dr. Mandell said because of lack of questions, there was little substantive record and knowledge of the complaining witness’s psychological state at the time this accusation was made.
Judge Griffin set a further status hearing.
