Understanding expert testimony on child sexual abuse denial after New Jersey v. J.L.G.: Ground truth, disclosure suspicion bias, and disclosure substantiation bias

Abstract

The New Jersey Supreme Court held in New Jersey v. J.L.G. (2018) that experts can no longer explain to juries why sexually abused children might deny abuse. The court was influenced by expert testimony that "methodologically superior" studies find lower rates of denial. Examining the studies in detail, we argue that the expert testimony was flawed due to three problems with using child disclosure studies to estimate the likelihood that abused children are reluctant to disclose abuse: the ground truth problem, disclosure suspicion bias, and disclosure substantiation bias. Research identifying groups of children whose abuse can be proven without reliance on disclosure reveals that denial of sexual abuse is common among abused children. 1 | INTRODUCTION In New Jersey v. J.L.G. (2018), the New Jersey Supreme Court re-evaluated the admissibility of expert testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS). CSAAS describes sexually abused children's secrecy, helplessness, entrapment, delayed disclosure, and retraction (Summit, 1983). The court held that, although scientific evidence supports the proposition that child sexual abuse victims delay disclosure, the other elements of CSAAS are not adequately supported and are not allowed in expert testimony. Specifically, the court found that experts could not explain to juries why sexually abused children might deny abuse. The court was influenced by reviews of the research asserting that "methodologically superior" studies find lower rates of denial.

Simulating denial increases false memory rates for abuse unrelated information

“…Victims of (child) sexual abuse might deny their traumatic experiences. While there is currently a discussion surrounding the prevalence of false denials in child sexual abuse investigations (London et al., 2020; Lyon et al., 2020), there is agreement that children often delay disclosure, and might initially deny that any abuse took place before coming forward (Eisen et al., 2021; London et al., 2020). When they eventually talk about the abuse, these victim's memory statements serve as important pieces of evidence in court and can influence decisions surrounding culpability (Romeo et al., 2018).…”

Public beliefs on the relationship between lying and memory

“…However, it is also possible that false denials are more prevalent than previously given credit for. That is, London et al (2008) showed that in child sexual abuse cases, victims rarely deny the event when they contact the authorities suggesting that false denials are not that commonly used (but see also Lyon et al, 2020). However, our results point towards the idea that in everyday life people lie one or multiple times a day, and often tend to use false denials as their deceptive strategy as opposed to fabrication or feign amnesia.…”

Children's underextended understanding of touch.

“…Children largely answer Yes-No questions “yes” or “no” without elaboration and rarely answer “I do not know” or seek clarification (Stolzenberg & Lyon, 2014). In the investigation of sexual abuse, a failure to disclose touching has different practical implications than an overt denial, because researchers generally agree that children delay disclosing sexual abuse, but there is disagreement over the likelihood that children deny sexual abuse when directly questioned (London et al, 2020; Lyon et al, 2020).…”