1. Is Syndrome Evidence Junk Science?

People v. Cegers, 7 Cal. App. 4th 988, 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 297 (1992) (defendant's conviction for assault with a deadly weapon and other crimes reversed; trial court erred in excluding portion of expert's testimony about sleep disorder that allegedly plagued defendant, "confusional arousal syndrome"):

"Dr. Mitler had examined Cegers and caused him to be examined by Dr. Poceta, a neurologist. Poceta had performed an EEG on Cegers, the results of which were considered by Mitler in his diagnosis. Mitler took a history from Cegers. He also administered an all-night test of oxygen in Cegers's blood by use of an instrument called an 'oximeter.' This was done when Cegers was in jail and at a time when he had no alcohol in his system. The purpose of the test is to measure the "oxygen saturation" in the blood during sleep. If sleep disorders occur which alter breathing habits the oxygen level will be decreased, resulting in detrimental consequences in terms of brain and cardiovascular functions. The oximeter is a device used for various medical diagnostic purposes and is well accepted in the medical community. No challenge was made to Dr. Mitler's testimony based upon any suggestion of unreliability in the testing of Cegers's blood oxygen content.

"Dr. Mitler was prepared to testify that Cegers suffered from apnea, and that on the day of the assault he also suffered from "confusional arousal syndrome." The oximeter showed that at times during Cegers's sleep his oxygen level diminished, caused by some defect in breathing patterns. This condition, called 'sleep apnea,' causes confusion and abnormal behavior upon being awakened, such as sleepwalking. The condition is exacerbated by excess alcohol consumption. Sleep apnea is a well-recognized condition, being listed in manuals which categorize diseases such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) and the psychiatrists' more specialized diagnostic manual (DSM-III-R). After extensive voir dire out of the presence of the jury, the doctor's testimony about Cegers's sleep apnea, as well as its potential impact on his conduct when suddenly awakened, was found admissible and presented to the jury.

"The excluded portion of Dr. Mitler's testimony was that which would have explored the syndrome called 'confusional arousal syndrome.' The syndrome is associated with people who have sleep apnea and are awakened during a period of depressed mental functioning. They are able to perform motor functions, such as walking, while still mentally asleep. In severe cases such persons can be violent, causing injury or death to others, in which event their condition has been termed 'homicidal somnambulism.' The condition is properly termed physiological rather than psychological, because it results from an anomaly of the brain.

"Dr. Mitler was prepared to testify that Cegers suffered from confusional arousal syndrome on the night of the assault. His opinion was based upon the oximeter test he had administered, Cegers's history (which included recitation of sleepwalking and sleep disorders), the evidence of excessive alcohol use on the night in question, and the bizarre nature of the assault itself. Mitler's diagnosis also relied upon Dr. Poceta's EEG test, which revealed no brain tumors or other readily discernible brain abnormalities. In that Cegers was charged with first degree attempted murder, this testimony was clearly relevant, if admissible, in terms of Cegers's state of mind at the time of the assault."

2.1 What Is a "Syndrome"?

2.2 Syndrome Evidence Offered against a Criminal Defendant

Minnesota v. Saldana, 324 N.W.2d 227 (Minn. 1982) (rape trauma syndrome inadmissible to show that rape occurred) (footnotes omitted):

"Rape trauma syndrome is not the type of scientific test that accurately and reliably determines whether a rape has occurred. The characteristic symptoms may follow any psychologically traumatic event. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 236 (3d ed. 1980). At best, the syndrome describes only symptoms that occur with some frequency, but makes no pretense of describing every single case. C. Warner, Rape and Sexual Assault 145 (1980). The jury must not decide this case on the basis of how most people react to rape or on whether Fuller's reactions were the typical reactions of a person who has been a victim of rape. Rather, the jury must decide what happened in this case, and whether the elements of the alleged crime have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

"The scientific evaluation of rape trauma syndrome has not reached a level of reliability that surpasses the quality of common sense evaluation present in jury deliberations. As we stated in refusing to permit introduction of 'battering parent' syndrome, the evidence may not be introduced "until further evidence of the scientific accuracy and reliability of syndrome or profile diagnoses can be established." State v. Loebach, 310 N.W.2d 58, 64 (Minn. 1981). Permitting a person in the role of an expert to suggest that because the complainant exhibits some of the symptoms of rape trauma syndrome, the complainant was therefore raped, unfairly prejudices the appellant by creating an aura of special reliability and trustworthiness. Since jurors of ordinary abilities are competent to consider the evidence and determine whether the alleged crime occurred, the danger of unfair prejudice outweighs any probative value. To allow such testimony would inevitably lead to a battle of experts that would invade the jury's province of fact-finding and add confusion rather than clarity.

"Rape trauma syndrome is not a fact-finding tool, but a therapeutic tool useful in counseling. Because the jury need be concerned only with determining the facts and applying the law, and because evidence of reactions of other people does not assist the jury in its fact-finding function, we find the admission of expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome to be error."

People v. Bledsoe, 36 Cal. 3d 236, 681 P.2d 291, 203 Cal. Rptr. 450 (1984) ("The principal issue on appeal is the propriety of the trial court's admission of expert testimony by a rape counselor that, after the incident in question, the alleged victim suffered from 'rape trauma syndrome.' As we explain, although in a rape prosecution expert testimony on the after effects of rape may be admitted for a variety of purposes, we conclude that the evidence in this case was not admissible for the purpose for which it was offered -- namely, to prove that a rape had occurred."; but error in admitting the evidence was found harmless)

2.2.1 Syndrome Evidence Offered against Criminal Defendant to Show Behavior of Alleged Victim

In the Matter of R.M., 165 Misc.2d 441, 627 N.Y.S.2d 869 (Fam Ct. 1995) (child sexual abuse "validator"; syndrome evidence held inadmissible)

Fleener v. State, 648 N.E.2d 652 (Ind. App. 1995) (criminal prosecution for child sexual abuse; evidence concerning "post-traumatic stress syndrome" held admissible)

2.2.2 Syndrome Evidence Offered against Criminal Defendant to Show Behavior of Defendant

State v. Loebach, 310 N.W.2d 58, 64 (Minn. 1981) (battering parent syndrome inadmissible)

2.3 Syndrome Evidence Offered by Criminal Defendant

People v. Stoll, 49 Cal. 3d 1136, 783 P.2d 698, 265 Cal. Rptr. 111 (1989) (defendant , who was charged with committing lewd and lascivious acts upon a child, offered testimony of a psychologist that defendant displayed no signs of "deviance" or "abnormality"; prosecutor argued that this psychological testimony was admissible only if it is first shown that "a psychological 'profile' of a child molester exists, and that its absence in a particular person [it] is generally accepted by other experts to mean that the person has not molested children"; the trial court excluded the psychological testimony, which the California Supreme Court found to be error)