context: Even where an expert does not directly compare the behavior of the complainant to that typical of sexually abused children, the expert's testimony may be inadmissible where a reasonable jury would think the expert was implicitly vouching for the credibility of the complainant.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 39 Mass. App. Ct. 577, 583-584
citation_a.parenthetical: expert's testimony based on hypothetical questions that mirrored underlying facts of case was "tantamount to an endorsement of the credibility of the complaining child witness"
citation_a.sentence: See also Commonwealth v. Perkins, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 577, 583-584 (1995) (expert’s testimony based on hypothetical questions that mirrored underlying facts of case was “tantamount to an endorsement of the credibility of the complaining child witness”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 409 Mass. 504, 504
citation_b.parenthetical: "little doubt" that expert's comments regarding credibility of "most" sexual assault victims would be taken by jury as expert's endorsement of complainant's credibility
citation_b.sentence: See Montanino, 409 Mass. at 504 (“little doubt” that expert’s comments regarding credibility of “most” sexual assault victims would be taken by jury as expert’s endorsement of complainant’s credibility); Ianello, 401 Mass. at 202 (“While the proposed testimony fell short of rendering an opinion on the credibility of the specific child before the court, we see little difference in the final result”; expert’s opinion “ultimately would have been applied [by the jury] to the child alleging sexual abuse”).