InSANE-ity

Just finished an aggravated sexual assault case here in South Texas.  My client was accused of sexually assaulting a young girl.  Once again, the state had the SANE nurse testify.  SANE stands for Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner.  The SANE nurse is a tool used by the state for prosecution.  Their primary function is to gather forensic evidence to be used in the prosecution of those accused of sexual assault.  They accomplish this by performing a standard triage medical examination, taking swabs of different areas of the body and getting an account of the patient's personal "history."  This "history" is merely an account of the events leading to patient's visit to the SANE nurse (e.g., the complainant's rendition of the alleged incident).  

In our particular case, the medical examination was "normal."  "Normal" means that there was no physical evidence of sexual assault.  Now, this isn't as case-breaking as some may think.  Quite often in these types of cases, there is no physical evidence of sexual assault.  And in these cases, inevitably, the SANE nurse will testify that the lack of physical evidence is not determinative as to whether a sexual assault occurred.  In fact, the nurse always testifies that an exam revealing no physical evidence of assault is "consistent with" a sexual assault having occurred.  

Now, you can always attack the credibility of the findings and expose the reality of the results of the examination.  But, as we've heard so many times before, you can't unring the bell.  Once the jury hears that there is medical evidence that appears to support the allegation, the hill gets that much steeper.  

During our trial, the nurse testified, as expected, that the physical examination was "normal" and that this examination was "consistent with" sexual assault.  Upon questioning, the nurse testified that during her career, she has conducted some 500+ sexual assault examinations and had only seen "abnormal" results in less than a dozen cases.  I found that to be astounding.  This nurse, who regularly conducts these examinations, has seen bruising, a broken hymen, abrasions, etc. (i.e., physical evidence of assault) less than a dozen times in her career during an examinations she's conducted.  That means in approximately 98% of the cases in which she testifies (I know not every case goes to trial.  I'm just approximating.), she is giving the "no physical evidence . . . consistent with" testimony.  That scares the hell out of me.

Imagine this, you're someone who is falsely accused of sexual assault.  Throughout pretrial discussions with the prosecutor, the only offers are those that would require you to register as a sex offender.  This is unacceptable to you, because you know you are not a sex offender.  You decide to take the case to trial, because, surely, the state cannot convict you for something you didn't do (I'll pause here, so the defense attorneys can stop laughing....).  Then, during your trial, a nurse takes the stand and testifies that the medical evidence in your case is consistent with a sexual assault having occurred.  WTF?!?  I understand the purported reasons for such testimony, but every time I hear it I can't believe it.