1. During trial, it was elicited on cross-examination, that the victim told the
investigator she never had sexual contact with Petitioner, and that her mother had told
her to lie.
These statements entitled the prosecution to introduce GSAAS testimony. Is the
introduction of CSAAS testimony a legitimate avenue that is appropriate for the court-room
or is it unconstitutional junk science as multiple courts have ruled?

2. During trial, the prosecution presented evidence of a jail recorded phone call. The
prosecution also supplied a transcript of the translated conversation to the jury, as the
translation was necessary because the conversation that was recorded, was not spoken in
English .>
This translation was not verified by a legitimate court translator, and the translation
was inaccurate, as it can be seen by the verified translation provided by Petitioner, after
trial on Habeas Corpus.
Is it unconstitutional to allow a translated transcript to be given to the jury that
has not been verified by a legitimate court translator?

Whether the introduction of CSAAS testimony is unconstitutional junk science