WPC0 ̆B1mDtNV-d-[ҷ`9>!z&FPǬVG5t :31PXwD O_'O}X/KZĠ`pS3XHABڝS%^DrߕeBkK=PHlQ3/τxm?҆!.J kpC@<8\h5X=D!>M4RrHѰҒbm@qGi!q?>A ɘC< {*7d '*!73Eڨ#xc+MܼHl5Zu(` ; =jO;؃"Xb\5d,X[u @J4@un9hO)>gt˛kTCȨ]Ƌ^:һ םl:zߝw)q ҎUżY#UN % 0 U6} N  0gEw@^ S4_s mU U. B B*HP LaserJet 5,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(Z)$USUS.,  <6X9`(Courier New  9,USUS., d   d (,(#,(#(  AX )1dE01AAW )1qdE#1A1  2 8 3  4 H  5   6 X   7  0  8 h  9 @  10 x  11 P 12  13 ` 14  15  p 16  17 0  18 " 19 @ $ 20 !& 21 P#( 22 $( * 23 `&!, 24 '8#. 25 p)$0 26 *H&2 27 ,'4 28(39$ )!USUS.,     d E  E  E UgK. ,z.:i+003|x UH6X`(<6X9`+Courier d&0 d d )!USUS.,    _ X݈XXX8Xdd8CLANCYLITIGATIONGROUP   PatrickE.Clancy,SBN60805 t Dr.DemosthenesLorandos,SBN177644 8 1600S.MainSt.,Suite185 L WalnutCreek,CA94596  Tel:(925)2564600  eFax:(888)8025089#XXXX݈# H  X݈XXX_{XX݈AttorneysforDefendant    #X݈X_{##XXXX݈s#X}XXX@ SUPERIORCOURTOFCALIFORNIA,COUNTYOF  0  @*THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF  )  CaseNo. h  CALIFORNIA,    h   )   p    ,|     `  )   @     `  Plaintiff,  )  POINTSANDAUTHORITIESIN      `     h   )  SUPPORTOFADMISSIBILITY x  Ѐ   ` vs.    h   )  OFEVIDENCEOFPARENTAL < 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#)  ALIENATIONANDEXPERTP(#(#    `     h   )  ON  TESTIMONYONTHE THEPSYCHOLOGICAL      `     h   )   p   PSYCHOLOGICAL RAMIFICATIONSOFPARENTAL     `  Defendant.  )  OFPARENTALALIENATION L    `     h   )   `    `     h   )  Date: $ Ѐ    h   )  Time:  ______________________________)  Dept: \ @$ INTRODUCTION     Defendantstandsaccusedofmolesting/abusing Ԁhis/her 0  son/daughter, .Inhis/her~ defenseattrial,Defendantwillseek " toestablishthatsuchchargesarefalse.Tothatend,he/she  @ $ willseekԀd topresentevidencethatԀhis/her spousehascaused !& his/her Ԁson/daughter Ԁtobecomealienatedfromhim/herj ,andthus P#( hasamotivetohateorfeartheaccusedparentandbebiased $( * againsthim/her.Defendantwillalsoseektopresenttestimony `&!, ofapsychologicalexpertontheissueofparentalalienationas '8#. aformofsuggestibilityintermsofachild'sabilityto p)$0 perceive,recollectandcommunicateanditseffectonan *H&2 alienatedchild'smotivetohateorfeartheaccusedandbe  biasedagainsthim/her. 8 @* I   @\ \  WHATISPARENTALALIENATION?  H    "Parentalalienation,"asdefinedbychildpsychiatrist   RichardM.Gardner,M.D.,refersto: X     "...adisturbanceinwhichchildrenarepreoccupiedwith  0    deprecationandcriticismofaparentdenigrationthatis     unjustifiedand/orexaggerated.Thenotionthatsuch h    childrenaremerely"brainwashed"isnarrow.Theterm ,|    brainwashingimpliesthatoneparentissystematically @    andconsciouslyprogrammingthechildtodenigratethe     other.Theconceptofparentalalienationsyndrome x    includesthebrainwashingcomponent,butismuchmore <   inclusive.Itincludesnotonlyconscious,butsubconscious P   andunconsciousfactorswithintheprogrammingparent    thatcontributetothechild'salienationfromtheother.    Furthermore(andthisisextremelyimportant),it L   includesfactorsthatarisewithinthechild `   independentoftheparentalcontributionsthatplay $   aroleinthedevelopmentofthesyndrome.Inaddition,    situationalfactorsmaycontribute,i.e.,factorsthat \   existinthefamilyandtheenvironmentthatmayplaya  p   roleinbringingaboutthedisorder."(Gardner,The 4   ParentalAlienationSyndromeandtheDifferentiation    BetweenFabricatedandGenuineChildSexAbuse(1987, l f  CreativeTherapeutics) 0  @tt) II  " f@  SPECIFICEVIDENCEOFPARENTALALIENATION  h$ @  DEFENDANTSEEKSTOINTRODUCEINTHISCASE.  ,%  Describethespecificevidenceofparentalalienationthatyou d"' haveinyourcasethatyouwantadmittedattrial. #<) G@88) III  t% + @` `  EVIDENCEOFPARENTALALIENATIONISADMISSIBLE &L"- @ASRELEVANTTOSHOWACHILD'SMOTIVETOFEARAND '#. @HATETHEALIENATED,ACCUSEDPARENTANDBEBIASED (#/ @,,"AGAINSTHIM/HERj.  H)$0 @*  Whenaparentisaccusedofchildabuseorchildmolestand * &2 theaccusedparentclaimsthathehasnotabusedormolestedthe X,'4 childandthathehasdonenothingelsetocausethechildto  haveamotivetohateorfearhim,evidenceofchildalienation 8 againstaparentisrelevanttoestablishamotiveforthechild  tofear,hate,andbebiasedagainsttheaccusedparent,thereby H  testifyingfalselyagainsthim.     Theexistenceornonexistenceofabias,interestormotive X   tofalsifyisrelevanttoandmaybeusedtoattackthe  0  credibilityofawitness.(EvidenceCode210;EvidenceCode h  780(f);_CALJIC_Ԁ2.20;Peoplev.Allen(1978)77_Cal.App_.3d924, @  931.)Suchbias,interestormotivemaybeestablishedoncross x  examinationorbyextrinsicproof.(Peoplev.James(1976)56 P _Cal.App_.3d876,886.)Defensecounselshouldbeallowedwide  latitudeindevelopingfactswhichshowbiasorinterestofa ` witnessandthusaffecthisorherK!Ԁcredibility.(Peoplev.  _Avelar_(1961)193_Cal.App_.2d631,634.)  p   Basedontheforegoing,evidenceofparentalalienationis  clearlyadmissibleintheinstantcaseasrelevanttothe 0  accuser'sbiasandmotivetotestifyfalsely,andtherefore " his/hercredibility. @ $ @tt) IV !& @P P ADEFENDANTHASACONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTO P#( @  EXPOSEAPROSECUTIONWITNESS'SBIASAS $d) @PARTOFHIS6THAMENDMENTRIGHTTOPRESENTADEFENSE.  $( *   Aspartofhis6thAmendmentrighttopresentadefense,a `&!, defendantinacriminalcasehasaconstitutionalrighttoexpose '8#. thebiasofaprosecutionwitness,eitherbycrossexaminationor p)$0 viathepresentationofextrinsicevidence.(Peoplev._Balderas_ *H&2 (1985)41Cal.3d144.)Ifcertainformativefactsgiveriseto  aninferenceofbiasbyaprosecutionwitness,adefendanthasa 8 righttoexposethosefactstothejury,includingfactsthat  wouldrealisticallymotivateawitnesstotestifyfalsely. H  (UnitedStatesv.Feldman(9thCir.1986)788F.2d544;Chipman   v.Mercer(9thCir.1980)628F.2d528.)@* &(V X   @P P EXPERTTESTIMONYISADMISSIBLETOEXPLAIN   0  @ PARENTALALIENATIONASAFORMOFSUGGESTIBILITY   @INTERMSOFACHILD'SABILITYTOPERCEIVE,RECOLLECT, h  @DDANDCOMMUNICATEANDITSEFFECTONANALIENATEDCHILD'S ,|  @ MOTIVETOHATEORFEARTHEACCUSEDANDBEBIASEDAGAINSTHIM, @  @INOTHERWORDSTOEXPLAINTHERELEVANCEOFEVIDENCE    @ OFPARENTALALIENATION.  x    Experttestimonyexplainingparentalalienationandits P applicationinagivensituationhasbeenadmittedinnumerous  casesbothinCaliforniaandelsewhere.(See_Coursey_v.Superior ` Court(_Coursey_)(1987)194_Cal.App_.3d147[invisitationdispute,  experttestimonyfromtherapistadmittedattrialthatchildin  p questionsufferedfromparentalalienationsyndromeandtherefore  didnotwanttovisitwithfather];InreVioletta568N.E.2d 0  1345(1991Ill.)[incaseinvolvingproprietyofchild's " placementinfosterhome,experttestimonyonparentalalienation @ $ syndromeadmitted];KarenB.v.ClydeM.574N.Y.S.2d267(1991) !& [incustodybattle,followingunsubstantiatedallegationsof P#( father'ssexualabuseofdaughter,experttestimonyonparental $( * alienationsyndromeadmittedattrialandcourtfoundthat `&!, motherlikelyprogrammedthechildtoaccuseherfatherofmolest '8#. somothercouldhavesolecustodyofchild];InreJohnW.(1996) p)$0 41_Cal.App_.4th961[independencycaseinvolvingunsubstantiated *H&2 allegationsofchildmolest,experttestimonyonparental  alienationsyndromeadmittedtoshowwhatmotherhaddoneto 8 child];Marriageof_Condon_(1998)62_Cal.App_.4th533[expert  testimonyonparentalalienationsyndromeadmittedattrialin H  moveawaycase];Whitev.White(1999)655N.E.2d523(_Ind.App_.   1995)[incustodycase,experttestimonyonparentalalienation X   syndromeadmittedattrial].)  0    Theadmissibilityofexperttestimonyonparentalalienation h  iscompelledbyPeoplev.Phillips(1981)122_Cal.App_.3d69and @  Peoplev.McDonald(1984)37Cal.3d351. x    Phillipsinvolvedanappealbyawomanconvictedof P murderingoneadopteddaughterandendangeringthelifeofthe  other.Inordertosuggestamotivetothejuryinacasewhere ` thedefendant'sconductwasotherwiseinexplicable,the  prosecutionwasallowedtopresenttheexperttestimonyofa  p psychiatristconcerning_Munchausen_'sSyndromebyProxy.    Thedefenseappealedonthegroundsthattheintroductionof 0  evidenceofmotivewasinadmissibleandthattheevidencewas " unreliablebecausethewitnesshadnotinterviewedthedefendant, @ $ usedonlyotherpeople'sliteraturetoformhisopinionsincehe !& hadnevertreatedanyonewith"_Munchausen_ԀSyndromeByProxy",and P#( thefactthatitisnotlistedasaformofmentalillnessin $( * AmericanPsychiatricAssociation'sDiagnosticandStatistical `&!, ManualofMentalDisorders.Thereviewingcourtrejectedeachof '8#. thesearguments.(Id.,atpp.8488.)Thecourt'sdiscussionof p)$0 theseissuessupportstheadmissionofexperttestimonyof *H&2 parentalalienationinthiscase:  8  "Admissibilityofpsychiatricevidencebythe 8 prosecutionwheredefendanthasnotmadehermental L stateanissue.Appellantsuggeststhismaybethe  'firsttimeinthehistoryofCaliforniacriminal  jurisprudenceinwhichtheprosecutionwaspermittedto H  putintoevidence,aspartofitscaseinchief,the  \ mentalconditionofthedefendantwithouttheissue   firstbeingraisedeitherbypleaorbythe    introductionofthedefendant'sstateofmindaspart X   ofthedefense.'Thatmaybetrue,butitishardly  l  persuasiveastotheadmissibilityofsuchtestimony.  0  Therulesofevidencedonotprecludeinnovation.    8  Whileaprosecutorordinarilyneednotprovemotiveas ,|  anelementofacrime(Peoplevs._Durrant_Ԁ(1897)116 @  Cal.179,208,48P.65;Peoplevs._Planagan_Ԁ(1944)65   _Cal.App_.2d371,402,150P.2d927),theabsenceof x  apparentmotivemaymakeproofoftheessential < elementslesspersuasive(Peoplevs.Beagle(1972)6 P Cal.3d441,450,99_Cal.Rptr_.313,492P.2d1).  Clearlythatwastheprincipalproblemconfrontingthe  prosecutorhere.Intheabsenceofamotivational L hypothesis,andinthelightofotherinformationwhich ` thejuryhadconcerningherpersonalityandcharacter, $ theconductascribedtoappellantwasincongruousand  apparentlyinexplicable.Asbothpartiesrecognize, \ Dr.Blinder'stestimonywasdesignedtofillthatgap. p   8  Theevidencewasthusrelevant,andtherefore  admissible'[_e]xcept_Ԁasotherwiseprovidedbystatute' l (_Evid_.Code,Sec.351).Appellantpointstono 0  statutoryprovisionwhichwouldprecludetheprosecutor D! fromintroducingotherwiseadmissiblepsychiatric " testimonyrelevanttomotivationonthegroundthatthe |# defendanthadnotplacedhisorhermentalstatein @ $ issue.!T%   8  AppellantreliesonPeoplevs.Nicholas(1967)65 "' Cal.2d866,880,56_Cal.Rptr_.635,423P.2d787,as P#( standingforthepropositionthatsuchevidenceshould $d) notbepermitted.Thatcaseanditspredecessor,Inre $( * Spencer(1965)63Cal.2d400,412,46_Cal.Rptr_.753, % + 406P.2d33,involvedtheconstitutionalissuesposed `&!, whenacourtappointedpsychiatristispermittedto $'t"- testifytoincriminatingstatementsmadetohimbythe '8#. defendantinthecourseofthepsychiatricinterview. (#/ Dr.Blinderneverintervieweddefendant,and p)$0 consequentlynosuchconstitutionalissueisimplicated 4*%1 here.*H&2    + '3 8  EvidenceCodeSection801describestheboundariesof  experttestimony:`Ifawitnessistestifyingasan t expert,histestimonyintheformofanopinionis 8 limitedtosuchanopinionasis:(a)Relatedtoa L subjectthatissufficientlybeyondcommonexperience  thattheopinionofanexpertwouldassistthetrierof  fact;and(b)Basedonmatter(includinghisspecial H  knowledge,skill,experience,training,andeducation)  \ perceivedbyorpersonallyknowntothewitnessormade   knowntohimatorbeforethehearing,whetherornot    admissible,thatisofatypethatreasonablymaybe X   relieduponbyanexpertinforminganopinionuponthe  l  subjecttowhichhistestimonyrelates,unlessan  0  expertisprecludedbylawfromusingsuchmatterasa   basisforhisopinion.'Testimonyoutsidethese h  boundaries,i.e.,`testimonyintheformofanopinion ,|  thatisbasedinwholeorinsignificantpartonmatter @  thatisnotaproperbasisforsuchanopinion,'is   subjecttoexclusionuponobjection.(_Evid_.Code x  Section803.)<   8  Theexistence,nature,validity,andapplicabilityof  thesefactsofthephenomenoncharacterizedas  `_Munchausen_ԀSyndromebyProxy'areallmatters L sufficientlybeyondcommonexperiencethatexpert ` opinionwouldassistthetrieroffact,andappellant $ doesnotargueotherwise.Thus,therequirementsof  subdivision(a)ofsection801aresatisfied.Itis \ theprovisionsofsubdivision(b)thatformthefocus  p ofappellant'sattack.4   8  Undertheprovisionsofsubdivision(b),thefactthat l Dr.Blinder'stestimonywasbasedinlargemeasureupon 0  reportsbyothersratherthanuponhispersonal D! observationsofthedefendantorofotherpersons " displayingthatsyndromemayaffecttheweightofhis |# testimonybutdoesnotrenderthattestimony @ $ inadmissibleifthosereportsmeetthestandardof !T% reasonablereliability.(SeeJefferson,California !& Evidence_Benchbook_Ԁ(1972)Sec.29.4,507509;cf. "' Peoplevs._Brekke_Ԁ(1967)250_Cal.App_.2d651,661662, P#( 58_Cal.Rptr_.854.)$d)   8  AllofthestudiescitedbyDr.Blinderappearedin % + professionaltechnicaljournals(cf._Luque_Ԁ_vs.McLean_ `&!, (1972)8Cal.3d136,148,104_Cal.Rptr_.443,501P.2d $'t"- 1163)andwerewrittenbymedicalspecialistsonthe '8#. basisofpersonalobservations.'Whilealaymanmay (#/ nottestifytoafactwhichhehaslearnedonlyby p)$0 readingamedicalbook,thereisnoquestionthata 4*%1 professionalphysicianmayrelyuponmedicaltextsas *H&2 thebasisforhistestimony.[Citations.]'(Brownvs. + '3 _Colm_Ԁ(1974)11Cal.3d639,644,114_Cal.Rptr_.128,522  P.2d688.)t   8  AppellantdoesnotquestionDr.Blinder's L qualificationstoappraisethereliabilityofthese  studies,nordoesshesuggestthatinformation  containedinthemcouldfeasiblyhavebeenpresented H  exceptthroughthereporteddata.(Ibid.)Indeed,she  \ doesnotdirectlyquestionthetrustworthinessofthese   studiesatall,ortheaccuracyofDr.Blinder's    interpretationofthemtothejury.Rather,sherests X   uponthepropositionthat_Munchausen_'ssyndromeby  l  proxyisan'unrecognizedillness...notgenerally  0  acceptedbythemedicalprofession,'andpointstothe   factthatthesyndromeisnotlistedordiscussedasa h  formofmentalillnessintheAmericanPsychiatric ,|  Association'sDiagnosticandStatisticalManualof @  MentalDisorders.    8  Weareawareofnosuchrequirement.Wearenot < confrontedherewiththeadmissibilityofevidence P developedbysomenewscientifictechniquesuchas  _voiceprint_Ԁidentification.(cf.Peoplevs.Kelly(1976)  17Cal.3d24,3032,130_Cal.Rptr_.144,549P.2d1240), L norwithconflictwithinthescientificcommunity.In ` Peoplevs.Jackson(1971)18_Cal.App_.3d504,507,95 $ _Cal.Rptr_.919,thecourtreferredtothe`battered  childsyndrome'asan`acceptedmedicaldiagnosis'on \ thebasisofmedicalliteraturenotunlikethat  p presentedhere.Thestudieshereshowintentional 4 poisoningofinfantsbytheirmotherstobeanother  formofchildabuse.Intheabsenceofsomereasonto l doubttheirvalidity,wefindnoabuseofdiscretionin 0  thetrialcourt'sdecisiontoallowexperttestimony D! basedthereon.""     Peoplev.McDonald,supra,concernedtheadmissibilityof @ $ experttestimonyonpsychologicalfactorsaffectingtheaccuracy !& ofeyewitnessidentificationtestimony.TheCaliforniaSupreme P#( Courtheldthatexperttestimonywhichsimplyinformsthejuryof $( * certainpsychologicalfactorsthatmayimpairtheaccuracyof `&!, eyewitnessidentifications"fallswellwithinthebroadstatutory '8#. descriptionof'anymatterthathasanytendencyinreason'to p)$0 bearonthecredibilityofawitness."(Id.,atp.366.)This *H&2 typeoftestimonyconcernsmatterssufficientlybeyondcommon  experiencesothatitcanassistthetrieroffact,andthus 8 passesthetestofEvidenceCode801.(Id,atp.369.)The  McDonaldcourtalsonotedthatinasexcase,"expertmedical H  testimonymaybeadmittedtoimpeachthecredibilityofthe   complainingwitnessbyshowingthathesuffersfromaparticular X   mentaldisorderthatimpairshisabilitytotellthetruth."  0  (Id.,atp.370.)Theexperttestimonysoughttobeadmitted h  hereconcerningcertainpsychologicalfactorsthataffectachild @  witness'sabilitytoperceive,recollectandcommunicate,in x  otherwords,memory,andinfluencehisorherbiasesandmotives P isnodifferentthanthetestimonyapprovedinMcDonald.Other  casesinvolvingsexoffenseshaveapprovedtheuseofexpert ` psychologicaltestimonyadmittedforsimilarpurposes.(E.g.,  Peoplev._Stoll_(1989)49Cal.3d1136[testimonyconcerningrape  p traumasyndrome];Peoplev.Gray(1986)187_Cal.App_.3d213  [psychologicaltestimonyconcerningtraitsorcharacteristicsof 0  childrenwhohavebeensubjectedtosexualabuseadmissibleas " akintotestimonyinformingthejuryoffactorsthatcanaffect @ $ eyewitnessidentification].) !& 񀀀 ` @% CONCLUSION  P#(   Thedefendantisfalselyaccusedofachildmolestation. $( * He/shekԀisconstitutionallyentitledtopresentevidenceof `&!, parentalalienationwhichisrelevanttoestablishingbiasanda '8#. motivetotestifyfalselyonthepartofhis/herlԀchiefaccuser. p)$0 Expertpsychologicaltestimonyexplainingparentalalienationas *H&2 aformofsuggestibilityintermsofachild'sabilityto  perceive,recollectandcommunicateanditsaffectonsaid 8 child'sbiasandmotivetotestifyfalselyisadmissibleaswell  toestablishthefoundationforsuchtestimony.Finally,itis H  importanttonotethattheexpertwillnottestifythatamolest   didordidnotoccur.Theexpertwillnotberenderingany X   opiniononthecredibilityofthecomplainant.Theywillonlybe  0  testifyingaboutthepsychologicalfactorswhichiffoundtobe h  presentmaytendtoestablishapossiblemotiveforthefalse @  allegation. x    Dated: P    `     h   Respectfullysubmitted,     `     h   _______________________________ L    `     h    `    `     h   AttorneyforDefendant#XXXX})#