Attorneys in the criminal sexual conduct case against Cook County Attorney Tim Scannell argued for more than an hour in a St. Louis County courtroom on Thursday, July 3, 2014 about whether the judge should allow—or disallow— an expert witness to testify that Scannell engaged in “grooming” before he had sexual contact with a 17-year-old he had known since she was in elementary school.
Scannell’s defense attorney Joseph Tamburino told 6th Judicial District Judge Shaun Floerke that he didn’t have adequate notice of the expert witness, that the expert is not helpful to the case in lieu of the facts. Tamburino said the expert testimony lacks foundation because, “it is my understanding that the expert has never interviewed the alleged victim in this case.”
Tamburino also argued that the expert witness, Dr. Amanda Powers- Sawyer, a White Bear Lake-based psychologist who has spent more than 10 years conducting psychosexual evaluations of dangerous sex offenders, would prejudice the jury and make it appear as if Scannell were guilty.
“I am objecting to Dr. Amanda Powers-Sawyer’s testimony in this case and asking the court to order barring such testimony,” Tamburino said to the judge.
Scannell, who has pled innocent, is arguing the relationship was consensual while the special prosecutor assigned to the case for Cook County, Thomas Heffelfinger, argued that Scannell was in a “position of authority” over the girl, which makes it a crime.
Heffelfinger, a former U.S. attorney, told the judge that he called the grooming expert only after receiving a letter from Tamburino on June 17 stating Tamburino had four character witnesses he would like to add to the trial. Two of them are character witnesses for Scannell and two know the victim, with one of them writing, “The victim would never do anything she wouldn’t consent to or agree on.”
Those words sent Heffelfinger searching for a grooming expert, he said, and once he found Dr. Powers-Sawyer [that day] he sent her the information about the case. She spent two weeks reviewing it and replied back in an 18-page report that yes, in her opinion, Scannell’s actions for about a four-month period before the kissing and sexual touching took place were consistent with “a classic grooming campaign.”
According to a July 2 memorandum to the court, Heffelfinger said if Dr. Powers- Sawyer were allowed to testify she would show that Scannell’s grooming behavior “caused the adolescent victim to become isolated from her family and peers; that the defendant’s grooming behavior caused the adolescent victim to become desensitized to the defendant’s sexual identity; and the defendant’s grooming behavior caused the adolescent victim to maintain contact and communication with the defendant despite the adolescent victim’s forceful and repeated verbalizations of resistance to defendant’s sexual advances.”
Tamburino argued that if Dr. Powers-Sawyer’s testimony were allowed he would need 18 to 24 hours of “full physiological testing for my client.” He said he expected his expert witness to say, “No, it’s not grooming. He has other reasons causing his behavior.”
But Tamburino didn’t think he would have time to line up the tests and testimony of a contrasting expert witness to that of Dr. Powers-Sawyer in the short time left before the scheduled July 21 court date, and added that if Dr. Powers-Sawyer were allowed to testify he would ask for a continuance of the trial.
“Quite frankly I’m baffled. I thought this was going to be a clean trial until this expert witness grenade was thrown,” Tamburino said to the judge.
Tamburino argued that grooming experts are called only when there is a delay in reporting, which is usually done by a child who is too young to explain what happened to them at the time of contact with a perpetrator. When the child is older and they come forward, said Tamburino, a grooming expert is brought in to explain to the jury why the child had such a long delay in reporting the abuse.
Heffelfinger rebutted that argument, and he explained to the judge that Dr. Powers- Sawyer’s testimony wouldn’t prejudice the jury, but instead inform them about grooming techniques perpetrators use to gain trust with victims before sexually abusing them.
In the months before the alleged sexual contact took place (allegedly on August 1 and August 15, 2012), Heffelfinger asserted the Scannell had “unbridled access to her.” Heffelfinger said, “He was helping her get into college, coaching her in tennis. The goal of grooming is to form trust and attraction. It is what happened here. It explains what happened here.”
Heffelfinger went on to say, “The courts of the State of Minnesota have recognized the subject matter of “grooming” for many years as an appropriate subject matter for expert testimony. As such, Mr. Tamburino’s claim that such expert testimony is contrary to Rule 7.02, Minn. R. Evid., is contrary to clear-cut case law of this state.”
As to whether or not it was necessary for Dr. Powers-Sawyer to interview the young woman in question, Heffelfinger said that Dr. Powers-Sawyer didn’t need to interview the girl because, “Examination of the victim by any expert is not required for an expert to render an opinion based on the evidence in the case.”
Judge Floerke admitted he hadn’t dealt with this situation before in his time on the bench, and he said he needed some time to review arguments and case law presented to him by both attorneys before making a decision to allow or not to allow the testimony of Dr. Powers-Sawyer.
He asked Tamburino to submit his objections in writing by press time Tuesday, July 8, and he said he would give his opinion on the subject within a couple of days after reviewing the arguments of both attorneys.
For Scannell, the Cook County Attorney who is on medical leave from injuries suffered in a December 15, 2011 courthouse shooting at the hands of someone he convicted for a crime similar in nature to the one he is now on trial for, the issue comes down to this: was his relationship consensual as his attorney asserts? Or was he in a position of authority as Heffelfinger alleges?
A change of venue was granted from Cook County to St. Louis County to ensure a fair trial. A jury will soon be selected and the trial is expected to last about one week. In it, as Tamburino asserted at the July 3 pre-trial hearing, many embarrassing things will be brought up about his client and the relationship involving the 17-year-old, but he believes no crime was committed.
Loading Comments