CVSA^® Upheld by US Courts

Recent Cases

California  Judge Orders Admission of CVSA - California, Chula Vista P.D. – Analyst/Det. Sgt. John Stires reports that during a therapy session, two sisters (12 years-old and 9 years-old) disclosed sexual abuse by a family member.  Chula Vista Police detectives were notified.  The sisters and their brother (11 years old) were brought to Children's Hospital for forensic interviews.  The children disclosed numerous acts of child molestation and inappropriate acts by their 29 year-old-stepfather.  Detectives from the Family Protection Unit developed probable cause and arrested the suspect.  After a lengthy interview the suspect continued to deny the allegations and agreed to a VSA exam.  Detective Sergeant J. Stires from the Violent Crimes Unit conducted the examination.  The suspect completed the exam and analysis of the second chart clearly showed deception indicated.  In a post-exam interview the suspect made several admissions to Detective Stires.  The F.P.U. detectives were then able to obtain a detailed confession from the suspect that resulted in seventy- seven charges being filed.  The suspect's defense attorney filed a motion to suppress the confession based on alleged deception and offers of leniency by the detectives.  The defense also submitted a report by an "expert witness" (Thomas Streed, Ph.D., Forensic Consultation International) alleging the CVSA was used as a "stress inducing tool to compel" the suspect to confess resulting in a coerced statement.  The Superior Court Judge reviewed the video tape of the interview and CVSA examination.  Defense and Prosecution then argued the case with testimony by the detectives and the suspect.  The Judge denied the motion to suppress and placed several limitations on proposed testimony by the "expert witness" for the upcoming jury trial.  The defense then asked that the entire CVSA exam with the confession be admitted into trial.  The judge agreed.  The accused then decided to accept a plea deal that included 18 years in state prison.

NJ Appellate Court Upholds Admission of Confession Obtained Using CVSA - In a case decided June 7, 2007, the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division, confirmed that the admission of a confession obtained utilizing the CVSA by the trial judge was correct. Attorney’s for the Appellant had argued that, among other things, the subject had "succumbed to a truth verification examination," a test not shown to be scientifically reliable, which the police used to "overpower (him) by telling him that the test administered showed that he was untruthful," thus causing him to confess. The court stated that "The CVSA examination was used solely as an investigative tool by the police and the State made no attempt to admit the results at trial. Defendant signed a consent form to take the CVSA examination and acknowledged that he understood the form. Defendant was asked if he had any questions about the examination and he stated that he did not. Additionally, the results were not fabricated, instead, they were administered by a trained and certified examiner (Det. Killane, Perth Amboy P.D.) who compared his conclusions with those of two other trained and certified examiners. Thus, under the totality of the circumstances defendant’s decision to make the confessions following the CVSA examination was voluntary and not coerced. Based on our review of the entire record, we perceive no sound basis to disturb the judge’s decision to admit defendant’s confessions."

This was an important decision. To read the entire opinion, including highlighted areas concerning the CVSA click here

Ohio Court Orders CVSA Results Admitted - Aug 18, 2008, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Darke Co., Ohio,   - In what is believed to be the first case in Ohio, the results of a stipulated CVSA exam were admitted into court. The case involved an individual that was accused of sexual molestation. The individual denied the act and agreed to a stipulated CVSA exam. The subject failed that exam and subsequently confessed. His attorney then filed a motion to suppress the confession because they were obtained using the CVSA. The court then denied his motion and ordered both the results and the confession admitted. Following that decision, the individual pled guilty as charged.