We have written before in opposition to a bill (A-3622/S-2405 in the previous session, A-2405/S-1651 in the current session) that eliminates the statute of limitations in civil actions for claims of sexual abuse. Although contrary to our prediction, it did not blitz through the last lame-duck session, it has now been released by both the Senate and Assembly judiciary committees and is on second reading before both full houses. For the reasons we stated previously, and some new ones, we think this bill should be vetoed by the governor if presented to him.
As we noted earlier, the current statute, especially as interpreted by the case law such as the Supreme Court decision in R.L. v. Voytac, already provides sufficient flexibility to toll the statute of limitations in situations in which, due to memory suppression, lack of cognitive awareness linking the injury to the alleged act of sexual abuse, or other equitable grounds, the injured party did not bring the action within the normal limitations period. This bill, however, would eliminate that textured approach and require a defendant to put on an evidentiary defense concerning events that may or may not have occurred decades before. As shown by the accusations (later recanted) against the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago, in the McMartin preschool case of the 1980s and in the Kelly Michaels case here in New Jersey, unsubstantiated allegations of child sexual abuse can and do happen. Under the malleable preponderance of the evidence standard and given the vagaries of human emotion on this topic, however, some miscarriages of justice would eventually occur.
