Expert Testimony Continues As Molestation Trial Wraps Up

By Jackie Snyder and Lauren King

Expert witness William O’Donohue was the first person called to the stand February 5, 2015. O’Donohue, a practicing clinical psychologist, had begun his testimony the previous day. Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin began questioning O’Donohue about his various research on child sexual abuse cases. In addition, he was questioned about his own personal experience working with children who had suffered from sexual abuse.

DDA Serafin referenced different studies that had been conducted in the past on child sexual abuse victims such as the “Green Study.” This study involved 11 children around the age of four. Approximately 35 percent of the children had made false accusations of sexual abuse. When asked by DDA Serafin how the accusations were determined to be false, O’Donohue stated that the accusations were determined to be false by examining the totality of evidence provided.

Ms. Serafin went on to ask if the children’s age made a difference, regarding false accusations, and O’Donohue stated yes. He then explained how younger children are more susceptible to having false memories, especially if an adult is consistently asking a child if any type of sexual abuse had taken place, or suggesting that it had.

Children also aim to please, so if a child suspects an adult or parent wants the child to admit they were sexually abused, there is a chance the child will make a false allegation. Parents may often show relief or comfort to a child when the child finally “admits” to being abused.

When this type of action takes place it may possibly reinforce the idea in the child’s mind, resulting in the child essentially telling the adult (or parent) what the child believes the adult wants to hear. O’Donohue also insisted that corroborating evidence is a big indicator of whether a child’s allegations of sexual abuse are true.

Before DDA Serafin ended her questioning of O’Donohue, she inquired into the amount of money he would likely earn for testifying in this trial. Defense attorney Steven Sabbadini would later explain to the jurors that O’Donohue’s role is not to tell the jury that something may or may not have happened. His purpose was to educate the jury.

Maria Flores was asked to return to the stand for additional questioning. Flores, employed through the Multi-Disciplinary Interview Center (MDIC), was assigned to interview the alleged victim at one time.

When asked how the alleged victim behaved during the interview, Flores testified that the alleged victim was reluctant to speak and not forthcoming with details. DDA Serafin asked if this type of behavior was typical in a child who might be embarrassed to speak about any sexual abuse that may of taken place. Flores stated that it was possible.

Defense attorney David Dratman questioned Flores regarding the nature of the MDICs and why they existed. Dratman then inquired into MDIC protocol and standards.

Based on the protocols and standards given by Flores, Dratman asked why Flores was not provided documents, such as police reports, necessary to conduct a thorough interview. Dratman asked if Flores felt she would have benefited from the additional information.

Flores agreed the information would have indeed been beneficial while conducting her interview with the alleged victim. Court was then dismissed for lunch and was to resume at 1:30 PM in Department Four.

Afternoon Session

After the lunch break on February 5, 2015, Mr. Dratman continued his cross-examination of Marie Flores, the interviewer from the MDIC.

Mr. Dratman asked questions that were intended to undermine the credibility of the alleged victim’s statements, as well as Ms. Flores’ interviewing techniques during the interview on November 25, 2013. A video of this interview had been presented to the court during the previous day’s proceedings.

Ms. Flores testified that she had only reviewed Officer McIrvin’s police report and not that of Officer Clark. Although she agreed that it is ideal to have as much information as possible about a case, she stated, “I conduct every interview the same way regardless of the amount of information I get.”

Mr. Dratman then asked Ms. Flores several questions about the alleged victim’s statements during the interview. The alleged victim did not tell Ms. Flores about any kissing of her mouth or breasts. She did tell Ms. Flores that Mr. Guzman did not completely remove her sweat pants during the alleged sexual intercourse on September 27, 2013. Both of these disclosures (or lack thereof) directly contradict previous statements that the alleged victim made to law enforcement.

Ms. Flores commented that it is common for more details to come out as a victim talks to more people about an alleged incident.

The alleged victim also told Ms. Flores that she never saw Mr. Guzman’s genitals; however, she had previously told an officer that Mr. Guzman did not wear a condom during the alleged sexual intercourse.

If the alleged victim had never seen Mr. Guzman’s genitals, how could she know if he had worn a condom? Ms. Flores did not explore this incongruity during the course of the interview.

The alleged victim did mention the ongoing child custody case between her mother and Mr. Guzman over her younger half-brother. She also informed Ms. Flores that she did not want her mother to have to pay for a lawyer, but the alleged victim did not discuss these matters in detail.

Ms. Flores was then asked multiple questions about the MDIC’s protocol and about her actions during the alleged victim’s interview. Ms. Flores testified that the center uses the Tom Lyon’s Ten Step Interview Model when conducting multi-disciplinary interviews (MDIs). This model contains example questions in addition to a description of each of the ten steps.

This model is designed to cover all of the bases when interviewing a child and to illicit the most reliable information. It does not, however, need to be adhered to rigidly. This model was presented in a document to the court as exhibit T.

Ms. Flores used some of the questions that were listed on the document, but not all of them. She argued that many of the example questions have the same general goal, to get the child talking, and so supplemental questions are perfectly acceptable.

It is important to build a rapport with the child and establish that they are capable of answering an open-ended question with a narrative before the substantive portion of the interview begins. It is also important that the interviewer avoid leading questions.

The alleged victim initially wrote her narrative down on a notepad instead of verbalizing it. It took her awhile to begin writing. After a rapport was established, Ms. Flores asked, “…why did you have to come here today?” The alleged victim responded, “We had to make sure that the report went through.”

Mr. Dratman believed Ms. Flores’ question to be suggestive. “Isn’t that a leading question…that she had to [come here today]?” Mr. Dratman argued that this phrasing would have suggested that the alleged victim was not at the MDIC by choice, but rather by possible coercion. The alleged victim’s response to this question also contained language that suggested that another person was directing her to make a report.

Mr. Dratman also argued that Ms. Flores changed the alleged victim’s words during the interview. “You said, ‘You had to make sure that the report went through.’” She changed the alleged victim’s words from plural to singular. This would hide the possible pressure from others that may have told her to go to the MDIC.

Ms. Flores agreed with Mr. Dratman that one must be careful not to supply information that would lead to a child altering their story. However, she defended herself by saying, “I don’t think I made her change her story, I was just trying to get to the abuse.”

Mr. Dratman frequently interrupted Ms. Flores as she attempted to respond to his questions and one of the jurors was nodding off during the testimony. The judge was also extremely annoyed with counsel because the trial had extended several days past the expected time frame. On several occasions, Judge Rosenberg called the counsel over for a sidebar to see how much longer they would be asking questions.

According to the witness, the alleged victim told Ms. Flores, “I would rather you ask me the questions and then I’ll say yes or no.” The alleged victim wanted Ms. Flores to supply the questions to help her with her answers. She wanted Ms. Flores to lead her, but Ms. Flores would not comply. “I need a narrative in your own words before I can ask you questions about it.”

The alleged victim told Ms. Flores that she had sexual intercourse with Mr. Guzman and that it only occurred on one occasion. She did not tell Ms. Flores that Mr. Guzman kissed her when they were both on the couch on September 27, 2013. She also said that Mr. Guzman did not move her shirt at all during the incident.

The alleged victim also told Ms. Flores that she thought that one of the reasons she was brought to the MDIC was because her mother wanted her to make a report so that Mr. Guzman could be arrested and taken to jail. She also claimed that her mother was threatening to pay for a lawyer if the alleged victim did not talk.

Ms. Flores had no knowledge of the fact that Mr. Guzman had filed a petition for custody of his son three days after the mother and her children had moved to Bakersfield (September 30, 2013). Ms. Flores agreed that this could provide a motive to make up a story and that this was not uncommon in child custody cases. Ms. Flores asked the alleged victim if her mother had told her what to say or not say in the interview and the alleged victim said that her mother had not.

DDA Serafin then began a re-direct examination of the witness. Ms. Flores verified that the alleged victim never told her that she felt coerced and that her mother never told the alleged victim to say something so that she could win the custody battle. Ms. Flores testified that she did not think that the mother was coercing her daughter.

Steven Gill was the next witness called to testify. Mr. Gill is an investigator with the Yolo County District Attorney’s office. He investigates the sexual abuse of children for the MDIC. On August 22, 2014, Mr. Gill accompanied DDA Serafin to a meeting with the alleged victim and her mother to prepare for the upcoming jury trial. Neither Mr. Gill nor DDA Serafin interviewed the alleged victim during the meeting. It is common for a DDA to meet with an alleged victim before trial, especially a young alleged victim.

The alleged victim confirmed that she had sexual intercourse with Mr. Guzman and said that she felt his genitals enter her own. She also verified that it only happened once. The alleged victim also briefly mentioned that Mr. Guzman and her mother had been arguing the night before the incident on September 27, 2013. The alleged victim told Mr. Gill and DDA Serafin that she tried to stay out of their way and went to bed at 9:00 PM. Mr. Guzman was outside, in his car, when she went to bed.

At 3:00 AM the alleged victim said that she woke up and went to the bathroom and saw Mr. Guzman entering the house from the outside. Mr. Guzman told her to wait for him and so she waited in the living room while he went to the bathroom. Then, he lay on the couch and told her to lie with him.

The alleged victim told Mr. Gill and DDA Serafin that Mr. Guzman began touching her sexually approximately one month before the alleged sexual intercourse. Mr. Guzman would touch her breasts and genitals and would ask her to touch his genitals. She also said that she and Mr. Guzman emailed each other every day.

The alleged victim also stated that, during her contacts with law enforcement, she was nervous and scared and so she did not want to tell them what happened. She told her cousins first and then told her mother one or two weeks later. The alleged victim claimed that she told her mother because she was tired of her asking about it and wanted to get the information off her chest. She admitted that she thought that the disclosure would help her mother with the custody case, but said that this was not the reason she told her mother.

Mr. Sabbadini began a cross-examination of the witness. Mr. Sabbadini questioned the thoroughness of Mr. Gill’s report. The meeting was not recorded because it was not intended to be an interview. Mr. Gill testified that he only documented information that had not been previously supplied by the alleged victim. He wrote a five-page report that contained mostly summary and paraphrasing.   He did not read any previous reports and only included one quote in his report. Mr. Gill responded that after 37 years in law enforcement he knew how to write a report.

Mr. Gill testified that the alleged victim told him that Mr. Guzman would give her hugs and try to grab her genitals while she was still living in Vacaville. She also told Mr. Gill that Mr. Guzman asked her to touch his genitals, also while she was still living in Vacaville. In previous statements, the alleged victim said that the sexual incidents did not begin until she moved to Winters.

Mr. Gill and DDA Serafin also spoke with the alleged victim’s mother privately. During this conversation, the mother said that the alleged victim told Officer McIrvin that she only held hands with Mr. Guzman. The mother also told them that her daughter did not want to go to the hospital and that was why she did not go to the hospital for a sexual assault examination.

Mr. Gill told the court that the alleged victim was not asked to fully describe the events that occurred on September 27, 2013. During the conversation, the alleged victim was quiet, somewhat withdrawn, and slow in her responses as though she was uncomfortable or embarrassed. She spoke with her head down and with difficulty when she told them about the alleged sexual intercourse.

This concluded the evidence portion of the trial. Judge Rosenberg set the trial to resume at 9:00 AM on February 6, 2015 for jury instructions, closing arguments, and jury deliberation. The Vanguard will provide an update once the jury comes back with a verdict.