In sex crime trials, the prosecution sometimes will utilize the testimony of an “expert” witness. The extent to which the prosecution can use such witnesses varies by state. In the below case, Texas v. C.K. (2014), the prosecution called a social worker to discuss the generalities of sexual abuse and sexually abused children. Attorney Pavlinic objected to the witness because 1) the Defense was not notified in advance that the witness would testify; 2) the testimony was elicited after both parties rested instead of during the case-in-chief – this denied the Defense the ability to call its own expert to challenge the testimony; and 3) the witnesses testimony consisted of generalities, and was not directly related to the facts of the case
Despite the objections, the testimony was allowed by the court. Faced with this unexpected challenge, Attorney Pavlinic aggressively and methodically cross examined the State’s “expert” witness. In the end, the jury returned with a not-guilty verdict on all counts. We hope you enjoy reading this real-life trial testimony, and also hope that this instills in you the understanding that sex crime trials are often complex and unpredictable, and therefore it is imperative to hire a defense attorney with an abundance of experience in this specific area of the law.
Q. Mr. Powers, you’re not a psychologist, are you?
A. I’m a clinical social worker.
Q. So the answer is, no, you’re not a psychologist?
A. No, I’m not a psychologist.
Q. Now, in coming here to testify today did you meet with Mr. Lewis and Ms. Miller to prepare your testimony?
Q. And when did you first meet with them?
A. Probably yesterday. Yeah, yesterday.
Q. So you got involved in this case yesterday?
A. No, I wouldn’t say that. I mean, we’ve discussed the case prior to this, possibly, just peripherally. But we really prepared for trial yesterday and talked.
Q. I would like to know since I wasn’t there. First you said yesterday, then you said, maybe not yesterday. So when did you get involved in this case?
A. As far as getting involved in the case I met with them yesterday. We may have had discussions about the case that I just don’t recall specifics about other than, this case is coming up, we would like you to testify in this
Q. So you normally get involved in cases of this magnitude and this importance affecting all these people the day before you’re going to testify?
A. We’ve been working together for some time. And so, we’re able to meet together and discuss a case, and I think being at a place where we’re able to work together, yes, we do that.
Q. So you work all the time with the State; is that correct?
A. I wouldn’t say all the time, but quite frequently, yes.
Q. Well, how much is frequently? Once a month?
A. Maybe — at least once a month, yes.
Q. How many cases have you collaborated with the State on?
A. I’ve testified in, I’d say over — in my 15 years of being at the advocacy center over a hundred cases.
Q. So you pretty much have this script out; is that correct? You meet with them and you say, okay, this is the testimony I’m going to give in general about abused children and the characteristics of sex offenders; is that right?
A. Well, every case is a little bit different, so I wouldn’t say I have a script, no.
Q. Well, you — what’s different about this case than all the other cases that you’ve done?
A. Well, again, every case is a little bit different and the dynamics are different. Sometimes —
Q. Well, I’m asking you.
A. I’m trying to answer your question.
Q. All right. What is —
A. Sometimes the person who is accused of the crime is a family member. Sometimes they’re not a family member. Sometimes they may be somebody in that child’s life. Sometimes it may be a mother, it may be a father. The dynamics are different in every case.
Q. So you said sometimes the person is in the child’s life or is not in the child’s life, right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. What other possibility is there?
A. Well, again, it may be a female, may be a male, may be —
Q. Well, gender — (Indiscernible crosstalk)
A. — a sibling.
Q. Please listen. Please listen.
A. I’m trying to answer your question and you’re interrupting me, so…
Q. I’m asking you a question. I’m trying to ask the question. So you said he’s either in the life or is not in the life. What is the other possibility?
A. That’s the question I was trying to answer.
Q. Okay. So what is the answer?
A. There’s a number of factors. It could be a female, it could be a male, it could be a — it could be a sibling, it could be — it could be multiple offenders. There’s a lot of factors that go into it. It’s not strictly just one offender and one dynamic.
Q. I’m sorry, I’m having a misunderstanding. I can’t understand your response. If somebody is in your life or not in your life, it could be a female, it could be a sibling, it could be your father, it could be your mother, your relative, right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. So they’re either in your life or it’s a female, brother, father, somebody else, and they’re not in your life. What is the other alternative?
A. A stranger. I mean, you know, when —
Q. So that would be in the other, not in your life if it’s a stranger, right?
A. People who sexually abuse children, especially most —
Q. Okay. But the question —
A. I’m really trying to answer your question but you keep interrupting me.
Q. The question was, if you say it’s a stranger, yes or no, a stranger would be classified as a person not in their life?
A. Some strangers abuse children, yes.
Q. So I — that’s not a response to my question.
A. I’m not understanding your question.
Q. Strangers can abuse children. My question was, if it’s a stranger he falls in the classification that he’s not in the person’s life, yes or no?
Q. Now, so you work with the State all the time. And is this the customary way that you testify, you come at the end of the case and you talk about abused children and about sex offenders and about all of these characteristics? Is this the normal way that you testify?
A. I wouldn’t say it’s a normal way. Sometimes I have a lot of involvement in the case itself. Sometimes I may have treated the child that is here. Sometimes I may have supervised the case. I have different involvement in different cases, so…
Q. Okay. Let’s talk about this case, okay. So you said sometimes. In this instance we know you didn’t treat anybody; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. All right. So when you come to testify is it — when you come to testify is it your custom that you come at the end of the case and give the testimony that you normally give?
A. Sometimes I testify in the case-in-chief and sometimes I come and testify in rebuttal.
Q. And what makes the difference? What makes determine whether you — what do you mean when you testify in the case-in-chief?
A. That means during the phase where evidence is being gathered and sometimes I have knowledge of a specific case where I need to provide that knowledge to the jury as part of my testimony.
Q. So when you testify in the presence — in the State’s case-in-chief we get to hear your testimony before we put on any evidence; is that correct?
Q. So in this instance what made you choose to come in and testify at the conclusion of the case as opposed to during the case-in-chief?
MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, I’ll object. The witness —
THE COURT: Excuse me. I’ll allow you to redirect at a later point.
MR. LEWIS: Okay.
MR. PAVLINIC: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you.
THE COURT: I said I would allow him to redirect at a later point.
MR. PAVLINIC: Redirect at a later time.
Q. (BY MR. PAVLINIC) So what made you make that determination?
A. Well, as the other witnesses, I received a subpoena and I come when I’m told to. I didn’t get to choose when I come.
Q. I see.
A. I don’t think any witness gets to choose when they come. I come when I’m instructed.
Q. And you’re an expert. Did you make any suggestions to Mr. Lewis about when you thought it might be appropriate to testify?
A. I come when they ask me to come.
Q. Okay. You come when they ask you. Why — you tell me to come and I’m there, right?
Q. And you testified you taught ethics?
A. I do.
Q. Do you see any ethical concerns about coming in at the conclusion of the case and giving these opinions and talking about these things when the Defense has no opportunity to respond?
A. Well, I don’t agree with your statement that you don’t have an opportunity to respond because you’re asking me questions right now. So the answer would be no, I do not — (Indiscernible crosstalk)
Q. — evidence beyond my ability to ask you questions?
A. I’m sorry. You talked over me, I didn’t hear your question.
Q. How would we respond by putting on any other evidence other than asking you questions?
A. That’s up to you to do. I don’t — I don’t know what — you know, you get a chance to talk to me too. And that’s (Indiscernible crosstalk)
Q. — I get a chance to talk to you, correct?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. So did you — you testified that you had an understanding of the facts of the case?
Q. Okay. You didn’t look at Mariah’s videotaped interview?
A. No. Tonya
Q. Now, that’s an interview that’s conducted in your own agency, the agency that you’re the head of; is that correct?
A. I’m not the head of the agency.
Q. It’s an agency in which you work?
A. The forensic interview is conducted at the Children’s Advocacy Center, that’s correct.
Q. And you’re part of the Children’s Advocacy Center, are you not?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And does Lisa Martinez work for you?
A. She does not work for me.
Q. Do you have a supervisor in that agency or are you the head of the agency?
A. I’m not — as I said, I’m not the head of the agency. I’m in charge of our clinical services.
Q. And you have the ability at any time to look at that interview and see what she said; is that correct?
A. I’m not in charge of forensic interviews. That’s separate from me. And, no, I don’t have the ability just to —
Q. All right.
A. — you know, give me any interview to see.
Q. As coming to court as an expert you want to have the most facts available to you as possible, don’t you?
A. I come to answer the questions that the attorneys ask me.
Q. You want to be as prepared as you possibly can; is that correct? You have an ethical duty to the jurors and to the Court to be as prepared and to be as professional as possible, don’t you?
A. I do.
Q. Now, you have the access to that videotaped interview, don’t you?
A. I have access to the forensic interview.
Q. If you wanted to see the videotaped interview you could have seen it, couldn’t you?
A. If I wanted to see it, I could see it.
Q. Would that have been the best source of the factual knowledge about what Mariah was saying?
A. It would be one part of it, sure.
Q. Did you hear her testimony in court?
A. I was not here for her testimony.
Q. What other basis of knowledge would you have about the facts of this case if you didn’t hear her testimony in court and you didn’t look at the interview that was conducted by your very own agency? Where do you get the factual knowledge of this case?
A. From the questions that are asked today and talking with the attorneys.
Q. So during the course of this direct examination you became familiar with the case and that’s what you’re basing your testimony on, what Mr. Lewis was telling you happened in this case?
A. Well, I believe I’m answering questions regarding the dynamics of abuse. I haven’t really answered —
Q. I haven’t asked you about — we’re going to talk about that in a second. I was asking you, sir, specifically about your knowledge of the factual allegations in this case.
A. I don’t believe —
Q. It comes from what he was telling you in the courtroom today?
A. I don’t believe I’ve asked — been asked or answered any questions regarding the facts of this case.
Q. On his direct examination you said you did not look at Mariah’s tape and — but you had an understanding of the factual allegations. That was your — those were your words that Ms. Tonya can replay for you if you wanted to. Did you say you had an understanding of the factual allegations of the case, yes or no?
A. I have a understanding of the allegations of the case.
Q. All right. So where did you get your factual understanding of the facts of this case, from whom?
A. From the district attorneys.
Q. And when?
A. At length, yesterday and today.
Q. And what were you told about the case?
MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, I’m going to object to hearsay.
THE COURT: I’ll overrule that objection.
MR. PAVLINIC: Did you overrule?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. (BY MR. PAVLINIC) What were you told?
A. I was told that this was a case related to a sexual assault of a child, a adult in that child’s life, as well as some dynamics involving that the child had made an outcry and wasn’t necessarily believed during that outcry.
Q. And what about the specifics, did you get any details about the nature and extend of the touching?
Q. Do you understand that the years in which the touching was supposed to have occurred?
A. I have a vague knowledge that it —
Q. What is your vague knowledge?
A. That it appeared it happened over a length of time.
Q. What years?
A. I don’t know the specific years.
Q. How many years?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know whether it was one year, two years, ten years, fifteen years?
A. I said I did not know.
Q. Okay. You don’t know. Would that have made a difference about the testimony that you gave here about all these characteristics of abused children? Wouldn’t you want to know the facts about the child that you were talking about?
A. No. My testimony today is about the dynamics of abuse, and the dynamics are the dynamics. They don’t change related to the facts of the case.
Q. I see. So you talk about the dynamics of abuse. It doesn’t make any difference what Mariah said. It doesn’t make any difference your understanding of the facts. You’re going to come in here and tell the jury — you’re going to talk about the dynamics of abuse; is that what you’re saying?
A. I’m here to answer the questions asked of me, yes.
Q. Is that what you’re saying? I know you’re here to answer the questions because that’s what your requirement is as a witness. But I’m asking you, is that what you’re saying about the quality of your testimony, that you’re just here to talk about the dynamics of sexual abuse unrelated to the factual allegations that pertain to Mariah; yes or no?
A. I’m — Q. Yes or no?
A. Please ask that again. I’m not sure I understand. It was a long question. I’m sorry.
Q. You’re talking about the general dynamics of sexual abuse?
Q. Without particular reference to the dynamics involving Mariah —–; yes or no?
Q. And the reason you can’t talk about the dynamics with Mariah —– because you don’t know anything about the case other than what Mr. Lewis told you in the courtroom today or yesterday before you were going to come in and testify, right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Did you ever reach out and talk to Carlos?
Q. Did you ever say to him, Carlos, I want to give you a polygraph examination?
Q. Did — do you know that polygraph examinations aren’t admissible in any court of law in any state in any federal jurisdiction in the entire United States?
A. Absolutely, yes.
Q. So your profession relies on inadmissible evidence, polygraph examinations that are considered in many jurisdictions to be nothing more than a hoax and voodoo?
A. A polygraph is a standard — it’s a standard practice for working with sex offenders —
Q. It’s not admissible–
A. — all over the United States.
Q. Okay. It’s not admissible in any court because it’s not scientifically reliable.
Q. You don’t see any sex offenders in this courtroom, do you?
A. I couldn’t answer that question.
Q. You haven’t evaluated anybody, have you?
A. Nobody in this courtroom, no.
Q. You’re not the treating social worker for anybody in this case, are you?
A. I’m not.
Q. You haven’t even interacted with Mariah on a personal basis, have you?
Q. Would you recognize her if she walked into this courtroom today?
Q. From where would you recognize her?
A. From meeting her in the witness room prior to coming in here.
Q. And how long did you talk to her?
A. I was in there, maybe, for 15 minutes.
Q. Do you know anything about family dynamics, about the education of her parents and what they do?
Q. Do you know anything about the social interaction between Mariah and her father and her mother and the visitation arrangements?
Q. Do you know anything about the nature and extent of the relationship and the quality of the relationship that Mariah had with Carlos?
Q. You didn’t find out anything about that information before you came into court today, did you?
A. I wasn’t asked to do that.
Q. In essence, you are here — do you know what the term “bolster” means?
A. I know what the term means.
Q. What does that mean?
A. “Bolster” is to impact in a positive way, to increase knowledge or increase the intensity of something.
Q. And that’s what you’re here to do, isn’t it? You’re here to bolster the State’s case because you are their guy to go to in these types of cases; isn’t that the truth, Mr. Powers?
A. I would not agree with that.
Q. How many times have you testified for the Defense?
A. In state court I’ve been subpoenaed by the Defense one time.
Q. One time. How many times have you testified for the State?
A. I said over a hundred.
Q. Over a hundred?
Q. And what were the circumstances under which you testified for the Defense?
A. It was a sexual assault case and the Defense attorney subpoenaed me to be there, so I was there.
Q. Did you — were you there as a hostile witness?
A. I’m never a hostile witness.
Q. I’m not meaning in terms of being aggressive, like I may be being aggressive with you, but hostile in the legal sense where you’re called by the opposing party because they’re calling you to give testimony that may be adverse to the other side.
A. Well, it’s important as a licensed professional I’m not on either side. I’m here to provide knowledge to the Court and the jury in a ethical way to ensure that they get the knowledge they need. If the Defense asks me the questions, I’m going to answer them the same way.
Q. Okay. Let’s talk about that ethical way to get the best knowledge to give to the jury. So what — what have you done to try to get some information from the Defense? Did you contact Ms. Barbieri?
A. She did not contact me.
Q. Did you contact her? You’re the expert. You’re the one that can reach out for information; isn’t that right? You were the expert and you can reach out for information; isn’t that right, if you wanted?
A. If I wanted to.
Q. Did you reach out to her; yes or no?
A. She did not reach out to me.
Q. Did you try — so we’ll assume that she didn’t reach out to you. The question was, again, so we have a clear answer on the record, did you reach out to her?
Q. Okay. Now you want to say again she didn’t reach out to you?
A. She didn’t —
Q. How about —
A. — if she would have called me I would have talked with her.
Q. Did you ask for any information that pertained to Carlos about his job employment?
Q. About the nature and extent of his relationship with his family?
Q. About his siblings?
Q. About his own son, Niko? Did you ever meet — do you even know who Niko is?
A. When he was talked about here in the case.
Q. Who is he?
A. I understand that’s his son.
Q. Did you ever meet him?
A. I have not met him.
Q. He’s sitting here in the courtroom, I think. He’s outside. You never met him. Met anybody, any significant others or anything?
Q. No information from the Defense, right?
Q. Okay. Tell us what you know about false accusations of abuse.
A. I know a great deal about —
Q. Okay. Let’s — I’d like to hear it. What’s the most important thing you can tell about false accusations of abuse?
A. That they happen sometimes.
Q. Okay. Under what circumstances do they happen?
A. They can happen in a number of circumstances. One of the most common ways that we see them is in custody battles.
Q. How about in high conflict divorce cases?
A. They sometimes happen, yes.
Q. And you know that the effects of false accusations of abuse can be very damaging on people, can’t they?
A. Devastating, yes.
Q. They impact people, their ability to function in life, don’t they?
Q. Impacts their finances, doesn’t it?
Q. It impacts their jobs, doesn’t it?
Q. It impacts how they interact with their family and their peers, doesn’t it?
Q. Now, do think that there should be a search and inquiry to make a determination as to whether or not there was a factual — excuse me — a false accusation of abuse?
A. I believe there is, yes.
Q. The jury is to determine whether the allegations are true or false; isn’t that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. You’re not saying that [defendant] is a sexual offender, are you?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. You’re not saying that Mariah is a victim of sexual abuse, are you?
A. I have not said that.
Q. That’s not proper testimony for you to give, is it?
A. That’s true.
Q. Tell us about Dr. Caudill. How much professional interaction did you have with Dr. Caudill?
A. I just reviewed her records.
Q. For the first time — first time on these cases, the first professional interaction you had with her?
A. Was I reviewed her records, yes.
Q. Okay. Reading the records in this case was the first time you had any interaction with Dr. Caudill; is that correct?
A. I’ve heard her name. I’ve been practicing a long time. But we don’t have any real professional contact, no.
Q. You’ve never been to her office?
Q. You’ve never conducted any seminars with her?
A. I couldn’t tell you whether she’s been in one of my seminars or not.
Q. The question was, did you conduct any seminars with her?
A. And my answer is, I don’t know if she was present during one of my seminars or not. There’s sometimes 2 or 300 people in the room, so…
Q. Did you and she ever engage in any joint seminars together?
Q. Do you know what her practices and policies are with regard to how she interacts with her clients?
A. I don’t know her practices and policies.
Q. You obviously — you weren’t there in the interview with Carlos when he was there talking to Dr. Caudill, were you?
Q. And you never got his version as to what happened, other than what you heard here in court today; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And Dr. Caudill’s referral to Chris White is contingent upon Dr. Caudill’s understanding of what she was told by Carlos; isn’t that correct?
A. I would think so, yes.
Q. And if she didn’t understand correctly, she may have referred him to an inappropriate therapist; isn’t that possible?
A. That’s possible.
Q. And shouldn’t a therapist take the time to allow their own patient the opportunity to explain and clarify? Should a professional allow a person that comes to them for help the opportunity to explain and clarify?
A. I would hope so.
Q. Is there a reason you would think that they should not have an opportunity to fully explain and clarify if they come to a professional for help?
A. I can’t think of a reason.
Q. Did you hear Dr. Caudill’s testimony about what happened?
A. I was —
Q. Were you here for her testimony?
A. I was not here for her testimony.
Q. Would it surprise you to learn that she said that in one instance that Carlos declined to give any explanation and then later on in her testimony said, well, he tried to clarify and I stopped him? Do you think that was good practice? Mr. Powers, is that good practice not to allow your patient to clarify?
A. I think it’s important to allow a patient to clarify.
Q. So you’re a clinician on occasion, right?
A. I am a clinician.
Q. If you have a client in your office, a patient in your office and you want that person to feel comfortable with you, they come to you in a trust position, didn’t they?
A. Yes. Trust is an important part.
Q. You want them to be free to tell you what’s on their mind?
Q. Isn’t it?
Q. And if she misunderstood what he said — the referral to Chris White is only as good as her understanding about the nature of the problem; isn’t that right?
A. That would be correct.
Q. And if she doesn’t understand the problem, she’s not making the correct referral, is she?
Q. Did you ever get Chris White’s notes?
A. I have not seen Chris White’s notes.
Q. Did you learn that Carlos told Chris White he was there because he had a problem with pornography and his marriage was going bad?
A. I learned that here in the courtroom.
A. I learned that here in the courtroom.
Q. So did you accept that as valid?
A. I accepted the —
Q. So if he’s there for —
A. — to the extent of the knowledge that I’ve learned about that, yes.
Q. If he’s there for problems that have to do with pornography and his marriage going bad, he has no business being in Chris White’s office then, does he?
A. Well, Chris White also is a licensed clinical social worker, he could treat those issues also.
Q. So he could treat him on other issues?
A. He could.
Q. So when you talked about Chris White you emphasized in your testimony only that he was a treatment provider for sexual predators?
A. No, I said he was a licensed clinical social worker and a licensed sex offender treatment provider.
Q. But you didn’t talk about his other aspects of the practice. You only talked about he was treating sexual offenders?
A. That’s a primary focus of his practice.
Q. So that’s the primary focus of his practice. That’s what stood out to you; is that correct?
A. That’s the question that was asked of me.
Q. All right. But you didn’t reach out to Chris White and say, hey, Mr. White, I know that you interviewed — you had a patient, Mr. —-, did you talk to him at all, get any of his records?
A. That would be inappropriate.
Q. Well, you could have gotten a HIPAA form release from Carlos, couldn’t you?
A. Mr. White couldn’t speak to me —
Q. Could you have gotten a HIPAA form release from Carlos if you asked for it?
A. If I asked for it?
Q. If he was willing to give it to you?
A. I suppose I could.
Q. Well, is there any reason that would have not enabled you to get it if you asked for it and said, here it is? Mr. Powers?
Q. The answer is — I suppose is — the answer is not, I suppose I would. The answer is, yes, I could have —
A. I have no reason to —
Q. — gotten permission?
A. I have no reason to interact with Chris White, so I have no reason to get the HIPAA form.
Q. I see. So — but you had a reason to talk about Chris White, right?
A. Well, I answered the questions.
Q. So let’s — now, you talked about cutting, the children react — they’re going to cut themselves. Did you see any cuts? Did you look at her arms? Did you see any cuts on Mariah?
Q. None. You didn’t see any, did you?
Q. Did you get any of the medical records where she said she went to to treatment for being sexually abused?
Q. You could have gotten a medical authorization from her family or from Mariah to get those records, couldn’t you?
A. If I was working with her, I would, yes.
Q. Well, you could have been able to testify more ethically and more completely if you had medical records; isn’t that right, Mr. Powers?
A. No, I don’t agree with you.
A. I’m not testifying about Mariah, and so, I have no reason to get her medical records.
Q. Okay. So if none of this testimony that you gave was about Mariah, what’s the relevance of the testimony that doesn’t have to do with Mariah and the case?
A. I’m here to talk about the dynamics of abuse and sexual abuse and sex offenders.
Q. You’re here to talk the dynamics of sexual abuse in an effort to bolster the State’s case, to make Mariah seem more credible through your expertise; isn’t that right? Isn’t that right? You have to admit that, that’s what you’re here for.
A. I’m not here to bolster.
Q. So let’s just wind up by talking about people that — what about the children that make false accusations of abuse, teenagers? What happens to them if they make a false accusation of abuse?
A. Well, a number of things can happen. You know, they could be charged with a crime. They — you know, a number of consequences may happen within their family. But in the most extreme cases they could be charged with a crime.
Q. So what — you haven’t taken any independent investigation to determine whether the allegations in this case are true or false, have you?
A. No, that would be inappropriate.
Q. That’s not even your role, is it?
A. It’s not my role.
Q. So you didn’t do anything independent with regard to Mariah and her family, with regard to Carlos and his family; that’s the truth, isn’t it?
A. It’s not my role in this case.
Q. But you know — you know that your testimony can be used to influence a jury, can’t you?
A. My testimony is to educate the jury.
Q. And you know that you have an ethical responsibility to give the most objective testimony possible, don’t you, as an expert?
Q. And, yet, you didn’t do anything to ensure the objectivity of your testimony, did you?
A. I believe I did.
Q. What did you do?
A. I provided the information that I was asked here in the courtroom.
Q. Yeah, from the State. What objective undertaking did you, as a professional, an ethical professional, say, I have an obligation, I’m an expert, I’m going to come into court and testify? What did you do?
A. I discussed it with the District Attorney’s Office and I came here to testify and answer the questions.
Q. And you know the consequences that people that get falsely convicted of abuse, don’t you?
A. There is some —
Q. They go to jail, don’t they?
A. They very well could, yes.
Q. They go on the sexual registry, don’t they?
Q. And they go on the sexual registry, in some cases, for the rest of their lives, don’t they?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And they’re subject to mandatory prison, aren’t they? And that’s a pretty —
MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, I’m going to object to relevance and argumentative.
MR. PAVLINIC: Your Honor, everything —
THE COURT: Excuse me. I haven’t had a chance to rule yet.
MR. PAVLINIC: Pardon me?
THE COURT: I didn’t have a chance to rule yet.
MR. PAVLINIC: I’m sorry.
THE COURT: I’ll overrule the objection.
Q. (BY MR. PAVLINIC) They go for the rest of their lives?
A. You mentioned mandatory prison and not all sex offenders —
Q. Some sex offenses are mandatory sentences, aren’t they?
A. Some are.
Q. And so, therefore, when we’re doing these things everybody has an obligation here, you as the expert, the State as the prosecutor, the judge, the Defense to present this jury with the most objective and fair evidence so that they can make a determination about the credibility of these accusations, and not you, right?
MR. PAVLINIC: If I may just have a minute, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. (BY MR. PAVLINIC) Just one final area, adult pornography is legal?
Q. Isn’t it?
Q. And not everybody that uses adult pornography is a child molester, are they?
Q. And not everybody who masturbates is a child molester, are they?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And there are many people that find their sexual stimulation in pornography and not in personal relationships, don’t they?
Q. And there are many people that masturbate rather than have normal sexual relationships, don’t they?
Q. And there’s no correlation, whosoever, in any of the literature between adult pornography and masturbation and any type of pedophilia, is there?
A. Not with pedophilia, no.
Q. And you heard Carlos testify that the only thing that he did, because his marriage was going bad, was to use adult pornography?
Q. You didn’t hear him talk anything about child pornography, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Would it surprise you to learn that Mariah said that the touching happened and it lasted a second?
A. It would not surprise me, no.
Q. That wouldn’t surprise you?
Q. You would think there would be sexual gratification for an adult male if he touches a child for one second when she’s seven years old?
A. An adult can get sexually gratified from touching a child for one second, yes.
Q. From the facts of this case, the jury — they’re going to determine whether the facts of this case support that legal conclusion. Would it surprise you — you said it wouldn’t surprise you that it stopped for years at a time?
A. That would not surprise me.
Q. But you — of course you don’t know how many — you don’t know how many years it stopped for, do you?
A. Not in this specific case.
<a. i about=”” asked=”” case.=”” p=”” specific=”” t=”” this=””>
Q. And you didn’t look at the tape, so you know that — you don’t know on the tape Mariah didn’t give any specifics about any year or any event at any time?
MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, I’m going to object to that as facts not in evidence, hasn’t been presented.
THE COURT: Sustain the objection.
MR. PAVLINIC: Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’ve sustained the objection as to the contents of the tape.
MR. PAVLINIC: I don’t think I have anymore questions of this witness.