Many CSA cases involve multiple complaints and/or multiple complainants. Rules based on the balance of probative value and prejudicial effect generally govern the admissibility of evidence of any previous acts of CSA (referred to as evidence of similar facts, bad character, prior misconduct or propensity). In the vast majority of trials involving delayed complaints of CSA, any similar facts arise out of multiple allegations rather than previous convictions or misconduct. Jurors may infer from the multiplicity of allegations that the defendant has a propensity to commit CSA offences. Both reasoning and moral prejudice may then influence jurors' decision-making based on this inference of propensity. The reality of multiple delayed charges of CSA and the associated decisions on joinder, severance, and cross-admissibility must be reconciled with the defendant's right to a fair trial, which may be affected by the combination of delay, multiple allegations, and the power of allegations of CSA.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.