Opinion ID: 4541159
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Bivens’ Testimony

Text: Dr. Bivens was the next witness called by the State. After Dr. Bivens testified as to his credentials and qualifications, the circuit court qualified Dr. Bivens as an expert witness in clinical psychology “with [an] emphasis in the general dynamics of child sexual assault.”
Dr. Bivens first explained that, in the context of child sexual assault, studies consistently showed “that sexual abuse most often occurs in the context of a preexisting relationship, preexisting nonsexual relationship between the adult and the child.” Furthermore, he explained that in his own practice, he could only recall “a couple of cases . . . [of] stranger abuse[,]” and that “[m]ost often, [the molester would 6  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  be] someone [that the child] . . . knew well” and that the child and family trusted. Relating to delayed disclosure, Dr. Bivens testified that “[d]elay[ed disclosure] [was] the rule, [rather than] the exception” for children who had been sexually assaulted, and that “the most common thing [for children to] do when molested [was to] not say anything for a long time.” He explained that it was not atypical for children to wait months or years to disclose their abuse, and also not atypical for them to “allow the abuse to continue . . . for a long period of time before disclosing.” He explained, “[t]he closer the relationship between the abuser and the child, the longer it [would] take to disclose.” Dr. Bivens further discussed the most common reasons for children’s delayed disclosures, including fear of not being believed, embarrassment, and not wanting to harm anyone, as well as the types of situations that would prompt disclosure. He then explained that children most often disclosed to their “mothers and close friends[,]” and that children’s initial disclosures often contained incomplete information. Dr. Bivens also explained that he was familiar with research on the topic of tunnel memory and that he dealt with patients “every week” within his clinical practice who were experiencing tunnel memory. Based on this testimony, the 7  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  circuit court ruled that Dr. Bivens had adequately laid a foundation to testify on this topic. 5 With regard to tunnel memory, Dr. Bivens then explained that while “the details of the sexual abuse” would be remembered well by victims, peripheral details, such as “the dates and times” of the occurrences, “[would be] remembered less well.” Dr. Bivens also discussed the typical interactions children had with their molesters, including: (1) “loving, seductive relationship[s]”; (2) “playful relationship[s] that [would] begin[] to involve sexual touching”; (3) “coercive relationship[s]”; and/or (4) “feeling taken advantage of[,]” in which the touching would occur while the children were sleeping. Dr. Bivens also testified that “there are two places where child sexual abuse most often occurs, and that it is the child’s own home and in the molester’s own home.” The State did not ask Dr. Bivens to comment on children’s credibility on direct examination, and Dr. Bivens did not do so. Further, Dr. Bivens emphasized that he had never spoken with nor met the witnesses in the instant case and was unfamiliar with the case’s facts. He explained, “I’ve just been talking about general dynamics. And, in fact, the material that 5 On appeal to the ICA, Engelby argued that the circuit court erred by permitting Dr. Bivens to testify on the topic of tunnel memory. Based on the record, however, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in this regard. 8  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  I’ve shared today is very similar to the general dynamics training that I do. It’s just [in] a longer format when I do that training.”
The subject of children’s credibility was first raised on cross-examination, when the defense asked Dr. Bivens how he would “distinguish compromised recall from a situation where the child might be lying in the context of, say, a divorce where parties are fighting and maybe a child [would be] compelled to lie[.]” In response, Dr. Bivens explained: [T]hat would depend a lot upon, you know, the nature of the report. There are certain kinds of lies that are much less common for children to tell, children are less likely to lie. If [] there are known consequences or likely consequences that are going to befall somebody else [-] that would require certain kinds of malicious qualities that tend to be rare. On the other hand . . . [,] in the cases that I’ve worked on where there were divorce problems, the child wasn’t necessarily the source of the report. The reports were coming [in] secondhand. So there are a number of factors that you can look at. (emphasis added). The defense then asked Dr. Bivens to “comment on the phenomena of rehearsal[,] . . . implant[ing] a memory, or suggestibility[.]” The following discussion ensued: DR. BIVENS: So there is research on suggestibility. It is possible to implant a memory into a child’s mind. Interestingly, it is also possible to implant [a] memory into an adult’s mind if you have enough [] knowledge about what you’re doing. In the case of children, implantation of memories is more common and more likely to occur with very young children, preschool age. . . . By the time you reach age seven, you’re talking about a child who is going 9  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  to be more resistant to this type of thing, although with enough concerted effort and enough technology you probably could pull it off in a seven-year-old also. DEFENSE: And a concerted effort could just mean [] – an adult repeating something over and over again, it doesn’t necessarily mean like they have to use the Internet or – DR. BIVENS: No, over and over again. Repeated implantation[.] (emphases added).
On re-direct examination, the State asked Dr. Bivens to explain “a little bit” more about false reporting and suggestibility. The defense did not object at any point during this discussion. STATE: Now, doctor, you were just asked a few questions regarding false allegations or suggestibility. Were there any . . . pivotal studies that you’re aware of that address this issue[?] DR. BIVENS: Yes. STATE: Can you tell us about that? DR. BIVENS: I certainly can. So in the 1980s, there were several [] unfortunate incidents in which preschool children were [] inappropriately interviewed by well-minded people who believed there was a phenomenon of satanic ritualistic sexual abuse that was happening to these children. There was no particular evidence of it and none of the children really reported anything prior. But upon multiple, multiple interviews[,] these preschool age children, four and five, were pressured and otherwise coerced into making statements[,] and some of the children came to believe those statements. It was a result of [] those incidents and the studies that [] looked at how that was accomplished and the practices that we use today to conduct investigation were developed to always avoid suggesting anything or bringing up the topic of anything that might have occurred. And, in fact, when I consulted with the