News
Juvenile
Jul. 29, 2002
Hear the Children's Voices
Forum Column - By Lisa Pinto - The brutal murder of five-year-old Samantha Runnion is a frightening reminder that our children are at risk. The presumption of innocence cloaks Runnion's alleged murderer, Alejandro Avila, until the state of California presents its evidence.
Forum Column
By Lisa Pinto
The brutal murder of five-year-old Samantha Runnion is a frightening reminder that our children are at risk. The presumption of innocence cloaks Runnion's alleged murderer, Alejandro Avila, until the state of California presents its evidence.
However, everyone knows that Avila was tried, but acquitted, for the violent abuse of two other little girls in nearby Riverside County just two short years ago. So why was he free to prey on other small innocents? Our Founders did not have predators like Alejandro Avila in mind when they drafted the Constitution, which structured our judicial system in a way that favors violent pedophiles and disenfranchises child victims. Lawmakers, jurists and victims' rights advocates must work together to prevent terrible crimes such as Samantha's from recurring.
If a defense lawyer does his or her work well, child victims will lose in our justice system. The burden of proof in adult courts is too high for child victims. Minors lack the language skills, memory and stagecraft necessary for convincing testimony. As a result of this problem, prosecutors routinely offer low sentences in plea negotiations for sex crimes against children in adult courts. Police officers and district attorneys dread the steep challenge of convicting an adult based on a child's testimony. Without a videotape or independent witness, the prosecution bears an unwieldy burden. In these cases, all the fact-finder has to go on is the child's word, and in our judicial system, that word is often very weak.
Even unskilled defense attorneys can make mincemeat of a juvenile victim or witness during cross-examination. It is easy to impeach testimony and exaggerate the inconsistencies common in little ones' recall. If you ask children what they did at school right after they arrive home, they may not mention eating lunch. Ask them again at dinner, and being "full from lunch" may be a reason they are not eating their peas. Does their first story impeach their second? Not in the real word, but it does in our courts.
So what are we as a society to do? Certainly, we can't tolerate a society that allows violent predators to roam through suburban towns selecting victims at random. The solution is rather simple. Using the same common sense that lawmakers demonstrated in drafting the penal code for juvenile delinquents, we should enact laws that protect juvenile victims.
For instance, we should improve the quality of judges who hear child sex abuse cases and train them to understand the particular way that traumatized children relate their experiences. In adult court cases which involve children victims, we need judges who will see through the examination techniques that defense lawyers use so that the judge can look straight through the affect of a child victim and directly to the evidence. Judges also should be encouraged to question potential jurors in these cases to screen for preconceptions about how "truthful" children testify. Finally, jury instructions must be tailored to address the credibility of young children testifying in an unfamiliar environment, such as advising the jury that children testify differently about sexual trauma than adults do.
To illustrate my point, consider this example. Several years ago, three boys were accused of raping an 11-year-old girl at gunpoint in an abandoned building. By all accounts, however, the victim was far from likable. It was clear that she was the product of a rough New York neighborhood: a tough, inarticulate, street-girl. On appearance and demeanor alone, a jury of adults probably would have had a difficult time believing her testimony. But because the accused were juvenile defendants, a juvenile judge with a background in child advocacy was assigned to hear the evidence. It seemed that, once the public defender saw that she wasn't going to be able to impeach the rape victim in front of a sympathetic jury, she advised her clients to plead guilty, and her clients were sentenced to long jail terms.
We must no longer allow the due process rights of corrupt adults to trump children's safety. Rather than a lay jury, let skilled judges who are sensitive to the nuances of children's body language, gestures and speech patterns - experts who have experience with children's testimony - be the fact-finders in sex abuse cases and evaluate the credibility of children victims.
Megan's Law protects children in their homes; let Samantha's Law protect them in the courtroom.
Lisa Pinto is a former Queens County, N.Y., assistant district attorney, juvenile felony prosecutor.
By Lisa Pinto
The brutal murder of five-year-old Samantha Runnion is a frightening reminder that our children are at risk. The presumption of innocence cloaks Runnion's alleged murderer, Alejandro Avila, until the state of California presents its evidence.
However, everyone knows that Avila was tried, but acquitted, for the violent abuse of two other little girls in nearby Riverside County just two short years ago. So why was he free to prey on other small innocents? Our Founders did not have predators like Alejandro Avila in mind when they drafted the Constitution, which structured our judicial system in a way that favors violent pedophiles and disenfranchises child victims. Lawmakers, jurists and victims' rights advocates must work together to prevent terrible crimes such as Samantha's from recurring.
If a defense lawyer does his or her work well, child victims will lose in our justice system. The burden of proof in adult courts is too high for child victims. Minors lack the language skills, memory and stagecraft necessary for convincing testimony. As a result of this problem, prosecutors routinely offer low sentences in plea negotiations for sex crimes against children in adult courts. Police officers and district attorneys dread the steep challenge of convicting an adult based on a child's testimony. Without a videotape or independent witness, the prosecution bears an unwieldy burden. In these cases, all the fact-finder has to go on is the child's word, and in our judicial system, that word is often very weak.
Even unskilled defense attorneys can make mincemeat of a juvenile victim or witness during cross-examination. It is easy to impeach testimony and exaggerate the inconsistencies common in little ones' recall. If you ask children what they did at school right after they arrive home, they may not mention eating lunch. Ask them again at dinner, and being "full from lunch" may be a reason they are not eating their peas. Does their first story impeach their second? Not in the real word, but it does in our courts.
So what are we as a society to do? Certainly, we can't tolerate a society that allows violent predators to roam through suburban towns selecting victims at random. The solution is rather simple. Using the same common sense that lawmakers demonstrated in drafting the penal code for juvenile delinquents, we should enact laws that protect juvenile victims.
For instance, we should improve the quality of judges who hear child sex abuse cases and train them to understand the particular way that traumatized children relate their experiences. In adult court cases which involve children victims, we need judges who will see through the examination techniques that defense lawyers use so that the judge can look straight through the affect of a child victim and directly to the evidence. Judges also should be encouraged to question potential jurors in these cases to screen for preconceptions about how "truthful" children testify. Finally, jury instructions must be tailored to address the credibility of young children testifying in an unfamiliar environment, such as advising the jury that children testify differently about sexual trauma than adults do.
To illustrate my point, consider this example. Several years ago, three boys were accused of raping an 11-year-old girl at gunpoint in an abandoned building. By all accounts, however, the victim was far from likable. It was clear that she was the product of a rough New York neighborhood: a tough, inarticulate, street-girl. On appearance and demeanor alone, a jury of adults probably would have had a difficult time believing her testimony. But because the accused were juvenile defendants, a juvenile judge with a background in child advocacy was assigned to hear the evidence. It seemed that, once the public defender saw that she wasn't going to be able to impeach the rape victim in front of a sympathetic jury, she advised her clients to plead guilty, and her clients were sentenced to long jail terms.
We must no longer allow the due process rights of corrupt adults to trump children's safety. Rather than a lay jury, let skilled judges who are sensitive to the nuances of children's body language, gestures and speech patterns - experts who have experience with children's testimony - be the fact-finders in sex abuse cases and evaluate the credibility of children victims.
Megan's Law protects children in their homes; let Samantha's Law protect them in the courtroom.
Lisa Pinto is a former Queens County, N.Y., assistant district attorney, juvenile felony prosecutor.
#337212
Columnist
Daily Journal Staff Writer
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com