Judicial training through AB 1846 should be law in California

On January 17, Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan introduced Assembly Bill 1846. According to Bauer-Kahan, “the Bill would require the California Judicial Council to establish, on or before July 1, 2026, judicial training programs for judges related to best practices related to treatment of sexual abuse and assault victims in courtroom cases. The requisite training programs would require input by victim advocacy groups. The training programs would be required for all newly appointed or elected judges and to all judicial officers on an annual basis.”

Sexual Assault is one of, if not the, most impactful crimes that can befall a victim. It is a crime that often carries a lifetime of painful trauma. Extensive research affirms the severe impact on the victim/survivor of sexual assault crimes including but not limited to long-term post-traumatic stress disorder, dysfunction in relationships, betrayal of trust, loss of the sense of safety and contemplation of suicide. Survivors report a range of mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, flashbacks, nightmares and low self-esteem. Many victims experience self-blame.

Research also shows that approximately 70% of rape or sexual assault victim/survivors experience moderate to severe distress, which is a larger percentage than for any other violent crime.

Rape and Sexual Assault crimes are the most underreported crimes in America. According to the national organization RAINN, between 20%-30% of sexual assault crimes are reported to the police. In California in 2022, 14,435 sexual assaults were reported to Law Enforcement, but the actual incidents of sexual assault could be closer to 50,000. National studies indicate that every 68 seconds, a person is sexually assaulted and an overwhelming majority of victims are women. One out of every six women in American will be a victim of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault, a majority of which are between the ages of 18-34.

To understand the undeniable dynamic, one need not look further than the “MeToo” movement, first coined in 2007 by Tarana Burke. The prevalence of undreported sexual assault crimes became strikingly obvious by the spotlight on social media with “#MeToo” hashtag, adopted and promoted by the actress Alyssa Milano in 2017. Social media recorded more than 500,000 “#MeToo” hits following Ms. Milano’s post about being sexually assaulted by Harvey Weinstein.

Victim/survivors of Weinstein suffered trauma, first by the crime itself, then in their silence and ultimately, by their experiences of testifying at his trials. Victim/survivors who testified were accused of lying, were challenged in their recollections, were treated poorly, aggressively and shamefully. This type of treatment of sexual assault victims, unlike victims of other crimes, was not uncommon.

Recognizing the horrific impact of sexual assault on the survivor is not a new phenomenon. We have understood the impact for more than 50 years! In 1972, before the Federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) was enacted or funded, then President Ronald Reagan authorized funding for three (3) Rape Crisis Victim Advocacy Programs at the start of the Victims’ Rights Movement. Bay Area Women Against Rape (BAWAR) was selected to receive federal funding; it was a grassroots advocacy program, founded in Berkeley in 1971, to assist and support survivors of sexual assault crimes. Today, there are more than 85 funded Rape Crisis Centers in California, many receiving VOCA funding and even more Victim Advocacy Centers addressing domestic violence, child abuse and trauma.

It is time for California Judges to be educated about the impact of sexual assault on the victim/survivor. The training must involve survivors’ voices to be authentic and impactful in order to prevent further abuse of the victim/survivor in the Courtroom.

Over the last several years, California lawmakers have enacted laws that recognize the impact of sexual assault on the survivor: survivors can have up to two advocates present in the Courtroom while testifying in a Preliminary Hearing; survivors can use a pseudonym in Court, such as Jane Doe; Judges must adhere to strict rules when children are testifying in Court, including keeping school hours and preventing the child from being questioned over and over about the same area of testimony.

Those laws have not necessarily parlayed into Judicial knowledge or practice because there are no laws requiring Judicial training on sexual assault. Example: a Judge disregarded the law and allowed the defense attorney to cross examine a 9-year-old child over two days, asking the same questions over and over again. The child had been molested by her biological father and was traumatized by the molestation. She was further traumatized in the courtroom by the Judge ignoring the laws in place to prevent more trauma. This is one of far too many examples of retraumatizing victims of sexual assault and sexual abuse.

There is precedence for engaging non-judicial individuals in Judicial training. In 2014, the California Judicial Council appointed non-judicial and judicial experts in the field of Domestic Violence to hold hearings. They heard from victims on how they were challenged, disbelieved, treated poorly and unfairly in the Judicial system. Today, each judge or subordinate judicial officer who hears criminal, family, juvenile delinquency, juvenile dependency or probate matters must participate in appropriate education on domestic violence issues as part of his or her requirements and expectations under Rule 10.462.

It is time for California Judges to hear from victim/survivors on their victimization and the impact of sexual assault / sexual abuse crimes that keep nearly 80% of its victims suffering in silence. Judges should understand the power dynamic of rapist against the victim and be educated on the psychological aftermath that leaves many victims emotionally paralyzed. The Legislature should pass AB 1846.

Some Judges wrongly assume they cannot control the demeanor of the courtroom, including towards victims. The time has come for California Judges to be educated so as not to create an experience that adds more trauma to the victim/survivor yet upholding the defense’s right to cross-examine.