And Then There was One: A Recent Minnesota Supreme Court Decision Has Left Pennsylvania as the Only State that Disallows Expert Testimony to Explain Victim Behavior

• NCJ Number: 237334
• Author(s): Christopher Mallios J.D.
• Date Published: August 2011
• Length: 3 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2009-TA-AX-K024
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women
• Sale Source: AEquitas
• Publication Format: News/Media
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Strategies in Brief, Issue 1, August 2011

Annotation

This brief examines the Minnesota Supreme Court decision regarding the admission of expert opinion testimony in sexual assault cases.

Abstract

The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with prosecutors that expert testimony regarding common victim behaviors is admissible in sexual assault cases and necessary to explain common victim behavior in sexual assault cases. This case note explains the holding in Obeta and outlines the prosecution's successful strategy to bring Minnesota to permit the admissibility of expert testimony to explain common victim behaviors in sexual assault cases. The prosecutors in Obeta built a strong record before the trial court that gave the Supreme Court everything it needed to issue a definitive opinion allowing expert testimony in sexual assault cases to explain common victim behaviors. At the pretrial hearing the proffered evidence was powerful and expert witnesses were highly qualified. The State demonstrated the need for this evidence with social science research regarding juror attitudes, rape myth acceptance, and the potential harmful impact of these mistaken beliefs on jurors and verdicts. This successful strategy can serve as a template for prosecutors who seek to introduce this evidence in trials before courts that are hesitant or even hostile to the idea of admitting it. 11 endnotes