In particular, the suspect should not agree to a police polygraph examination. Polygraph results are not always accurate. A failing score often leads to intense grilling for a confession. Even if the grilling produces no damaging statements, polygraph failure may influence the prosecutor to file a charge-- either because it convinces her she has justice on her side, or because she fears the wrath of the child's family if she declines to file a charge that has been "proven" by polygraph.

Talking about the accusation to anyone but counsel is hazardous. The suspect may need to assure key people-- his wife, for example-- of his innocence, but he should not go beyond that until he discusses the situation in detail with counsel. If he has a confession to make, that, too, should go first to counsel. What medical evidence needs to be
preserved when physical abuse of a child is suspected? If the child has died, there is no substitute for an autopsy. Specimen collection should include liver and bile.

If the child survives, urine and serum specimens should be gathered, preferably when the child's condition is at its worst. Some child injuries that appear to result from abuse actually result from undiagnosed inherited metabolic disorders. Geneticists call these "inborn errors of metabolism," or IEM. Laboratory testing can discover IEM-- if urine and serum are preserved for testing. They are rarely preserved, though, without lawyer intervention. If necessary, even a wet diaper may yield a sufficient specimen.

Repeated unexplained injuries to a child incline physicians to diagnose child abuse. More than one SIDS death in a family affects them that way, too. Yet these recurrences also suggest a hereditary metabolic disorder.

More information on IEM is available at www.mayo.edu/bgl. Can a sexual deviance evaluation
help an innocent sex crime suspect avoid prosecution? Maybe. It depends, of course, on the prosecutor, and probably also on the strength of the case. (Here we assume that the evaluation would not be admissible at trial; its sole function would be to influence the prosecutor's decision whether to charge.)

Sexual deviance evaluations are generally designed for people already known to suffer from deviance. They assess the extent of the deviance, determine appropriate treatment, and assess the risk of not incarcerating the client during treatment. Sexual deviance evaluations are not generally designed to determine whether the client is free of sexual deviance.

Accordingly, the most one can hope to get from a competent evaluation is a heavily qualified clean bill-- something like, "While sex offenders do not all manifest any distinguishing psychological traits, Mr. X does not manifest any of the traits, behaviors, or history most often manifested by sex offenders and thus seems unlikely to be one." How can a lawyer get sexual deviance evaluation and treatment
for an offending client without increasing the client's legal jeopardy? Often a sex offender wants treatment for his deviance. He may want it because it will improve his prospects in the legal system, or for healing, or for both these reasons.

Getting sexual deviance evaluation and treatment is perilous. The process usually includes taking the client's complete sexual history. Mandatory reporting laws generally require the persons who provide sexual deviance evaluation and treatment to report to the authorities any child sex crime that comes to their attention. That could lead to the client facing a new charge.

If the police are already investigating your client for a child sex offense, most of these providers would not construe the law to require them to report anything they learned about that offense from your client. But often sex offenders are not caught the first time. If your client has committed another sex offense, the evaluator will probably be obliged to report it.

There is another complication. Sex offenders often lie to themselves and their lawyers about the extent of their sexual misconduct. Sexual deviance evaluators often get more truthful sexual histories from them. A lawyer cannot rely on his client's assurance that this time was the only time.

What is the lawyer to do? Talk to the evaluation and treatment providers under consideration. Ask each how he or she reacts when it appears a client is about to identify other victims. Some will say to the client, "It sounds like we should stop for the day, and you should talk to your lawyer about this before we resume." Others press on, get the victim's identity, and then report to the police; they believe that the client should reveal the complete truth without any regard for legal consequences.

Talk to the providers also about how specifically other victims must be identified. Does the provider need to know the full identity of other victims? Is it enough for the client to say, for example, "It was a junior high school girl who lived in my neighborhood?" If the provider does not learn enough of the identity for the police to figure out the rest, does he or she construe the law to require him or her to make any report?

After these discussions, a lawyer may be able to choose an evaluator and treatment provider who will not expose his client to unnecessary legal risk. How late can a victim bring a claim
for damages caused by childhood sex abuse? Many statutes of limitation have been amended to give adults who suffered sex abuse during childhood more time to file damages claims. In Washington state, for example, RCW 4.16.340 permits a claim to brought as late as three years after the victim discovers that her emotional problems are the result of the abuse.