WPC0 OaD}![N!kq=3fо9yJP\8W \} ݚnA*+a(XdHs팃HjG7d]&^zźO`@KSNZp@oU*︞נI[0j0v=hh)8D~!g;Rl*$s4#o>l&MH?,144Y~[.g$Oqj@[ 2 cLR@vɃvl˟C[{O]P'4Dw(w1}y/[ktrtAlIGq]l:pÖwq?gX-ֲ`ϑljMm3Qi n1Ɯ^| z4Z\B={"elȫOEELs$ G Nɱc+_KctێҨ mwY$:<-Y#UN % 0 U6} N  0gEw@^ S4_s mU U. B B*HP LaserJet 5,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(Z)$USUS.,  <6X9`(Courier New  9,USUS., d   d (,(#,(#(  AX )1dE01AAW )1qdE#1A1  2 8 3  4 H  5   6 X   7  0  8 h  9 @  10 x  11 P 12  13 ` 14  15  p 16  17 0  18 " 19 @ $ 20 !& 21 P#( 22 $( * 23 `&!, 24 '8#. 25 p)$0 26 *H&2 27 ,'4 28(39$ )!USUS.,     d {EEE E  g. ,z.:i+003|x UH6X`(<6X9`+Courier d&0 d d )!USUS.,    _ XhXXX 8Xdd8 CLANCYLITIGATIONGROUP   PatrickE.Clancy,SBN60805 t Dr.DemosthenesLorandos,SBN177644 8 1600S.MainSt.,Suite185 L WalnutCreek,CA94596  Tel:(925)2564600  eFax:(888)8025089#XXXXh# H  XhXXXHXXhAttorneysforDefendant    #XhXH##XXXXhs#X5XXX@` ` SUPERIORCOURTOFCALIFORNIA,COUNTYOF_____  0  @*THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF  )  CaseNo. ,|  CALIFORNIA,    h   )   p    @     `     h   )  0 p MOTIONTOADMITTOMO      `  Plaintiff,  )  MOTIONTOADMIT  EXPERT TESTIMONY  x     `     h   )  ONPSYCHOLOGICALFACTORS <    ` vs. )  AFFECTINGTHESUGGESTIBILITY, P    `     h   )  MEMORYANDABILITYTOPERCEIVE     `     h   )  ANDCOMMUNICATEOFACHILD     `     h   )  WITNESS L    `  Defendant.  )  Date: `    `     h   )  Time: $    `     h   )  Dept:  ________________________________) \ @P P  SCOPEOFDEFENSEEXPERTWITNESSTESTIMONY 4    ThedefensewillmovetoqualifyDr.______,asanexpert l witness.Dr._______haspreviouslyqualifiedasanexpertin D! Californiacourts,forbothprosecutionanddefenseclients,in |# suchareasas: !T%   1.ThefactorsthatexistinChildSexualAbuse "' AccommodationSyndromeexistincasesoffalseaccusationsalso. $d)   2.Psychologicalfactorsthatcancausememorytobe % + influencedbysuggestibility.Thistestimonyisbasedonover90 $'t"- yearsofresearchonmemoryandsuggestibility. (#/   3.Psychologicalfactorspresentininterviewingtechniques 4*%1 thatcancausememorytobeinfluencedbysuggestions. + '3   4.Evaluationofthereliabilityofpsychological  methodologyusedinotherexperts'opinions.Forexample,inthe 8 formationoftheconceptsofChildSexualAccommodationSyndrome.    Theexpertwillnotexpressanopinionastothecredibility H  ofanychildwitnessinthiscasenorwillhe/sheԀexpressan   opinionthatanychildwitnessinthiscasewassubjectedto X   suggestiveorcoerciveinfluencesduringanyinterviews.  0   @*I  h  @ WHATISSUGGESTIBILITY?  @    Assuccinctlystatedbyresearchers,suggestibilityinthe x  contextofchildwitnesses"concernsthedegreetowhich P children'sencoding,storage,retrieval,andreportingofevents  canbeinfluencedbyarangeofsocialandpsychological ` factors."(_Ceci_ԀandBruck,SuggestibilityoftheChildWitness:  AHistoricalReviewandSynthesisVol.113PsychologicalBulletin  p 403,404(1993).)Thefactorsnotedby_Ceci_ԀandBruckthatcan  influenceachildwitness'ssuggestibility,intermsofwhat 0  happenswhenthechildisinterviewedconcerningsexualabuse " includerepeatingquestions,askingmisleadingquestions,asking @ $ leadingquestions,conductingtheinterviewinanaccusatory !& atmosphere,reinforcingthechild'sanswers,chastisingthe P#( child'sfailuretodisclose,prolongingtheinterview,conducting $( * multipleinterviews,andsource_misattribution_.(Id.,pp.418 `&!, 425.) '8#. @tt) II  p)$0 Ӏ@  STATUTORYAUTHORITYFORTHEINTRODUCTION *H&2 @ OFEXPERTTESTIMONYONTHEISSUESOFMEMORY, + '3 @ PERCEPTIONANDCOMMUNICATION.    EvidenceCode780_(c_)providesstatutoryauthorityforthe 8 introductionofevidencebythedefenseontheissuesofcapacity  toperceive,recollectand/ortocommunicateanymatterabout H  whichhetestifies:     "Exceptasotherwiseprovidedbystatute,thecourtor X     jurymayconsiderindeterminingthecredibilityof  l    awitnessanymatterthathasanytendencyinreason  0    toproveordisprovethetruthfulnessofhis     testimonyatthehearing,includingbutnotlimitedto h    anyofthefollowing..._(c_)Theextentofhiscapacity ,|    toperceive,torecollect,ortocommunicateanymatter @    aboutwhichhetestifies."   Thiscodesectionisencompassedby_CALJIC_Ԁ2.20,whichprovides < inpertinentpart:    "Indeterminingthebelievabilityofawitnessyou L   mayconsideranythingthathasatendencytoproveor `   disprovethetruthfulnessofthetestimonyofthe $   witness,includingbutnotlimitedtoanyofthe    following: \   Theextentoftheopportunityorabilityofthewitness 4   toseeorhearorotherwisebecomeawareofanymatter    aboutwhichthewitnesstestified: l   Theextentofthewitnesstorememberortocommunicate D!   anymatteraboutwhichthewitnesstestified." " @88) III  @ $   @DDDEFENDANT'SCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOPRESENTADEFENSE. !&    DueProcess,underboththeUnitedStatesConstitution,and P#( theCaliforniaConstitution,requiresthatanaccusedpersonhave $( * arighttofullandfairpresentationofevidencethatmight `&!, influencethedeterminationofguilt.(UnitedStates '8#. Constitution,AmendmentsV,VI,andXIV;CaliforniaConstitution, p)$0 ArticleI,Section15;Taylorv.Illinois(1988)484U.S.400, *H&2 408;Chambersv.Mississippi(1973)410U.S.284[exclusionof  evidencevitaltoadefendant'sdefenseconstitutedadenialofa 8 fairtrialinviolationofconstitutionaldueprocess  requirements.) H  @tt) IV  X    @EXPERTTESTIMONYONPSYCHOLOGICALFACTORSAFFECTING  0  @ACHILDWITNESS'SSUGGESTIBILITY,CAPACITYTOPERCEIVE,   @ RECOLLECT,ORCOMMUNICATEHASBEENFOUND h  @ADMISSIBLEINFEDERALCOURTS,ANDBYANALOGYIN ,|  @ CALIFORNIACOURTSASWELL. @     `     h A.ROUSECASE x    InUnitedStatesv.Rouse(8thCir.1997)111F.3d561,the P defendantswereconvictedofaggravatedsexualabuseofchildren  undertwelveyearsofage.Thecrucialissueattrialwas ` whetherthechildvictimstestifiedfromtheirownmemoryofthe  eventsorfromafalsememoryinducedbytheinterrogation  p methodstowhichthechildrenweresubjected.Thedefense  presentedthetestimonyofapsychologistconcerning"thewaysin 0  whichthereliabilityofchildren'sallegationsofphysicalor " sexualabusemaybetaintedbyadultquestioningpracticesthat @ $ suggestfalseanswersorevenimplantfalsememories,"suchasby !& leadingquestions,repeatedquestions,playtherapy,and P#( communicatingadultassumptionsthatcauseachildtogivewhat $( * heorsheperceivesisthecorrectanswer,useofrewards,etc. `&!, (Id.,atp.570.)Thetrialcourtprecludedtheexpertfrom '8#. testifyingthatapracticeofsuggestibilityhadbeenemployedby p)$0 theinterviewersinthatcaseandthatthevictims'accusations *H&2 ofsexualabusewerenotcredible.Onreview,theappellate  courtdeterminedthat"Aqualifiedexpertmayexplaintothe 8 jurythedangersofimplantedmemoryandsuggestivepractices  wheninterviewingorquestioningchildwitnesses,butmaynot H  opineastoachildwitness'scredibility,"thusapprovingthe   lowercourt'srulings.(Id.,atp.571.)Theappellatecourtin X   apreviousopinioninthesamecasefoundsuchevidencepassed  0  _thereliabilitytestofDaubertv.MerrellDowPharmaceuticals, h  Inc.(1993)509U.S.579.TothesameeffectisUnitedStatesv. @  Reynold(9thCir.1996)77F.3d253,254(reviewingcourt x  affirmeddistrictcourt'srulingsallowingthedefensetopresent P experttestimonyonmemoryandsuggestibilityofyoungchildren).  ThetypeofexperttestimonyfoundadmissibleinRouseisexactly ` thetypeoftestimonyDefendantproposestobeadmittedhere.   @"B.MCDONALDCASE   p   InPeoplevs.McDonald(1984)37Cal.3d351,theSupreme  Courtheldthatthetrialcourtprejudiciallyabusedits 0  discretioninexcludingexperttestimonyonpsychologicalfactors " affectingtheaccuracyofeyewitnesstestimony.(Id.at376). @ $ Thecourtrejectedthegroundsonwhichthetrialcourtpremised !& theexclusionofsuchtestimony,whichwerethatitwouldinvade P#( theprovinceofthejury,standardCALJIC2.21wouldsufficiently $( * alertthejurytoproblemsineyewitnesstestimony;theproposed `&!, experttestimonywouldviolateEvidenceCode352,anditwasnot '8#. sufficiently"scientificenoughatthispointintime." p)$0   TheMcDonaldcourtfoundthatexperttestimonywhichsimply *H&2 informsthejuryofcertainpsychologicalfactorsthatmayimpair  theaccuracyofatypicaleyewitnessidentification"fallswell 8 withinthebroadstatutorydescriptionof'anymatterthathas  anytendencyinreason'tobearonthecredibilityofawitness" H  (37Cal.3d351,366,citingEvidenceCodeSection780).Such   testimonywasfoundtobesufficientlybeyondcommonexperience X   suchthatitwouldassistthetrieroffactwithinthemeaningof  0  EvidenceCode801.(Id.,atp.369.)Theexperttestimony h  whichDefendantseekstoadmitinthiscaseisexactlythetype @  approvedinMcDonaldinananalogouscontext,i.e.,adiscussion x  ofpsychologicalfactorswhichcanimpairthememoryand P perceptionofawitness,whichbearsonhisorhercredibility.  McDonaldremainsthelawinthisstate.(Seee.g.,Peoplev. ` Gaglione(1994)26Cal.App.4th1291,1301["Itisundisputedthat  experttestimonyonthepsychologicalfactorsaffectingthe  p reliabilityofeyewitnesstestimonyisadmissibleinacriminal  case,"citingMcDonald].) 0    TheMcDonaldmodelofpresentingappropriateexpert " testimonyhasbeenendorsedinchildmolestcaseswherethe @ $ defendantwishestoattackthereliabilityoftheevidence !& againsthim,thusprovidingfurthersupportfortheadmissionof P#( theexperttestimonyatissueinthiscase.Forexample,in $( * Peoplev.Harlan(1990)222Cal.App.3d439,thedefensemovedto `&!, preventtestimonyofachildonthegroundsthatstudiesshowed '8#. theirtestimonywasunreliable.Thecourtstatedtodosowould p)$0 virtuallyinsulatechildmolestersandtheuseofexpert *H&2 witnessesasusedintheMcDonaldcasewasthepreferredmethod  forpublicpolicyreasons.Thecourtstated: 8 8  "ThecourtinPeoplevs.McDonald(1984)37Cal.3d351,  208Cal.Rptr.236,690P.2d709suggestedabetter  approachbywhichadefendantmaychallengethe H  reliabilityoftheevidenceagainsthim.InMcDonald  \ thedefendantchallengedthetrialcourt'sruling   excludingexperttestimonyonfactorswhichaffectthe    reliabilityofeyewitnessidentifications.TheSupreme X   Courtreviewedtheextensivecaselawandprofessional  l  literatureonthesubjectofthehighprobabilityof  0  errorineyewitnessidentification.(id.,atpp.363   365,208Cal.Rptr.236,690P.2d709.)Thecourt h  concluded,`Theconsistencyoftheresultsofthese ,|  studiesisimpressive,andthecourtscannolonger @  remainoblivioustotheirimplicationsforthe   administrationofjustice.'(Id.,atp.365,208 x  Cal.Rptr.236,690P.2d709.)Next,thecourtreviewed < thedefendant'sofferofproofanddeterminedthat_the P expert'sprofferedtestimonywasbeyondthecommon  knowledgeofjurorsandthuswasapropersubjectfor  experttestimony.Finally,thecourtreviewedthe L circumstancesunderwhichitwouldbeerrortoexclude ` suchtestimony.Thecourtheld,`whenaneyewitness $ identificationofthedefendantisakeyelementofthe  prosecution'scasebutisnotsubstantially \ corroboratedbyevidencegivingitindependent  p reliability,andthedefendantoffersqualifiedexpert 4 testimonyonspecificpsychologicalfactorsshownby  therecordthatcouldhaveaffectedtheaccuracyofthe l identificationbutarenotlikelytobefullyknownto 0  orunderstoodbythejury,itwillordinarilybeerror D! toexcludethattestimony.'(Id.,atp.377,208 " _Cal.Rptr_.236,690P.2d709.)|#   8  Wepreferthisapproachtothatproposedbyamici, !T% whichwouldimmunizeanaccusedchildmolesterwhenthe !& onlywitnessagainsthimisthevictim.Adefendant "' may,undercurrentlaw,offerexperttestimonyto P#( challengethevictim'stestimonyinappropriatecases, $d) preservingthejury'srighttomakeultimate $( * determinationsonthecredibilityofthewitness. % + (McDonald,supra,37Cal.3datp.377,208_Cal.Rptr_. `&!, 236,690P.2d709.)"(Peoplev.Harlan(1990)222 $'t"- _Cal.App_.3datp.452.)'8#.   AlsoseePeoplev.Gray(1986)187_Cal.App_.3d213,220[inchild p)$0 abusecase,experttestimonyconcerningthetraitsor *H&2 characteristicsofachildwhohasbeensexuallyabused  admissibleasakintoexperttestimonyinformingthejuryof 8 certainfactorsthatmayaffectaneyewitnessidentificationala  McDonald].) H  @% CONCLUSION      Currentcaselawallowstheuseofexperttestimonyforboth X   thedefendantandtheprosecutioninthedefinedareasof  0  expertiseinwhichDr.__________#LԀhaspreviouslyqualifiedasan h  expert.Dr.__________'sLԀopinionconcernsthesuggestibilityof @  childwitnessesandthepsychologicalfactorsaffectingtheir x  memory,perceptionandabilitytocommunicateonly.Theexpert P willnotattempttousurpthefactfinder'sfunctionbyforming  anopinionastowhethertheallegedvictiminthiscaseisa ` falseaccuserorhasbeensubjectedtocoerciveinfluences.  His/herNԀtestimonyfallswithinthelimitsoftheseminalcasesof  p McDonaldandRouse.    Dated: 0     `     h   Respectfullysubmitted, "    `     h   _____________________________ !&    `     h    `     h   AttorneyforDefendant#XXXX5)#