America and Juries—Sexual Assault Trial July 3, 2026

JEFFERSON COUNTY, WA — America was founded on liberation from tyrannical, over-reaching government and the idea that all people deserve freedom. While most cases don’t go to trial, serving on a jury exercises the community voice and, much like voting, directly shapes the legal system. 

Through this civil responsibility, we see how deeply we depend on and affect one another in our democracy. This article describes the care taken to protect the memories of alleged victims in sexual assault cases.

Anyone 18 or older can serve on a jury, but 20 million people in the United States have felony convictions and no longer have that right.

The jury's job is to determine if the prosecution has presented a legally sound case—that there is no reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime—and to deliver a verdict. Research from 2010 shows that 99% of juries side with the prosecution.

On July 3, during trial for an alleged child molestation and incest case, the defense brought PHD experimental psychology expert Daniel Reisberg to testify. 

The Beacon is not reporting on direct details of the case in order to protect the names and family of the alleged victim. 

Reisberg answered questions about his educational background, what he knows about cognitive memory, and what forensic interviewers consider when talking with children about an alleged sexual assault. You can read part one of the Beacon’s series on the prosecutorial process for child sexual assault cases here.

Jury members took notes to aid their memory once they’re asked to deliberate and give a verdict. They hurriedly scribbled to keep up with Reisberg’s information about how vital it is that children be questioned promptly and properly with as little influence on their memory as possible. 

Most sexual assault cases do not have physical evidence, as prosecutor Holly Graham explained in part one, and child sexual assault cases rely on the forensic interviews as the evidence. So it is extremely important that the interviews are done appropriately. 

Reisberg explained how malleable a child’s memory is and how deeply it can be affected by influences such as leading questions from multiple family members. The number of influences increases unreliability. “You can’t un-ring a bell or un-scramble an egg,” he said.

Reisberg clarified that “memory mistakes” are common, because a sincere belief in a memory as true holds emotional value and “feels” true, but it might not be a genuine fact. He also explained that dream-reality confusion is common in children. While it is also possible in adults, it becomes less common as we grow.

Time is a very significant element in conducting an interview that will be used as evidence in a sexual assault case. Reisberg explained that it is far more grounded to look at the event and move forward than to refer to a memory and evaluate backward. 

“As time goes by, the memory of the original event is going to fade,” Reisberg said. “The child will lose the anchor. As time goes by, the increase [in] chances of influence goes up and up.” 

The prosecution asked two simple questions of Reisberg: Was he working from his own memory, and was he being paid by the state? He answered yes to both questions. The defense asked him to clarify if being paid affects his testimony. “Goodness no,” he said.