U.S. v. Brooks - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States v. Brooks, No. 06-0060/AFJr., provided inadmissible “profile” evidence when he testifiedabout the percentage of false claims of sexual abuse made bychildren. Although Brooks failed to object to the testimonyabout which he now complains, we conclude that the militaryjudge plainly erred by allowing testimony that was thefunctional equivalent of vouching for the credibility ortruthfulness of the victim. Finding plain error, we reverse.In light of our disposition of this issue, we need not addressthe remaining issues.BackgroundThe charges against Brooks arose from his alleged impropersexual activities with a five-year-old child who Brooks and hiswife would occasionally baby-sit. As part of its case-in-chief,the prosecution presented the testimony of Dr. Acklin, who wasrecognized as an expert in the field of clinical psychology.Dr. Acklin testified generally about the cognitive skills ofchildren and the ability of a child to distinguish between whatis true and what is not true. Included in this testimony wasthe subject of suggestibility, which Dr. Acklin defined as “theinfluence that a person would exercise on the accuracy of achild’s recall.”With respect to the victim in this case, Dr. Acklinperformed a mental evaluation and concluded that she was anormal little girl who could distinguish between the truth and4