Throughout this week, I will be attending a trial in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas for a rape case with Judge Zmuda presiding. This is the third in a series of multiple posts about the trial. Each post will document that day's proceedings and what I learned.
The trial continued today after the prosecution concluded their presentation of evidence yesterday. This means that it was the defense's turn to present its case with evidence.
The defense began with a defense witness who is a clinical psychologist. After viewing some videos from children services, the psychologist made a claim that the staff member from children services made many mistakes in asking the victims questions. Although he stated that children are, to an extent, able to accurately describe past events, he argued that the staff member at children services didn't use best method of asking the victims questions about the alleged events. He also stated that there was a possibility of interview bias in interviews at children services due to how the questions were asked. In this case, it means that the interviewer unintentionally asked questions to the children in a manner that expected only specific answers, regardless of the question that was actually asked. An example of how this could happen is if the interviewer says "good job" after a question is answered, potentially biasing all answers after that comment from the interviewer.
The prosecution cross-examined the psychologist primarily by asking about his background, training, how much he gets paid, and an overview of forensic interviewing. Many questions were about methods and issues with interviewing a child victim, such as how to properly pose questions to child victims in order to get the most accurate answers from them. The prosecution also asked some more questions about signs of pedophilia. The prosecution didn't seem to be convinced about everything that the psychologist said about methods of asking questions and interview bias, and asked many questions during its cross-examination.
Yesterday, I said I learned a lot about prosecutors. But I also learned a lot about defense lawyers. This particular defense lawyer is also very articulate and careful, wary of any misstep. However, he was prepared. He took many notes throughout the entire trial. It looks like he knows what he's doing. It is very difficult to tell where the trial will tomorrow. We'll have to wait and see.
Poom-- what did you think? Did the psychologist make a compelling case? Had the CS employees influenced the children? By the way, was the psychologist a paid witness? Should that matter?
ReplyDeleteThe psychologist made a very interesting case, although the prosecution accused him of cherry-picking on certain aspects of very small issues in the interview with children services. Did children services influence the children? I don't know. I can't have an opinion because I was unable to stay after 3:30 PM on that day to watch the video of the interviews.
ReplyDeleteThe psychologist was a witness paid for by the court. According to the defendant's docket (which you can search at the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas website under Online Dockets; see page "Appendix to the Trial" for details), the defendant's motion requesting for the expert assistance of Dr. Daniel Swerdlow-Freed on 9-5-2014, and the court authorized monies to be paid to him on 1-7-2015. Although the defense lawyer did ask him how much he was being paid while he was on the witness stand, I neither recorded nor do I currently recall the amount he is paid. The jury was unaware that the psychologist's services were paid for by the court. Should it matter that the psychologist was paid? Perhaps; money is a powerful concept that tends to influence people to act in one way or another. However, the defense has every right to witnesses and evidence to make its case (see the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America), and in this case, the defense had a right to hire the psychologist as a witness.