The results of Timothy Busfield’s psychosexual evaluation — which revealed his “satisfying” sex life with his wife, Melissa Gilbert — might not have the impact he’s hoping for in his child sex abuse trial.
“There is a saying: garbage in, garbage out. If you do not have accurate information being provided to an evaluator, the results of the evaluation are not going to be accurate. These evaluations can be problematic because they are vulnerable to being manipulated by offenders,” Joseph McNally, a former federal prosecutor and director of emerging litigation at McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP, who is not involved in Busfield’s case, exclusively tells Luxury Handbag Shopping.
In court documents filed on January 16, it was revealed that Busfield took a “comprehensive” assessment with Dr. Leandrea Romero-Lucero, a licensed provider and certified sex offender treatment specialist, who determined he “does not appear to have a sexual attraction to prepubescent or adolescent males or females.” (Busfield is facing two counts of sexual abuse involving a minor and one count of child abuse in connection to alleged incidents with twin child actors on the set of Fox’s The Cleaning Lady between 2022 and 2024).
The evaluation determined Busfield as being “very low risk” of committing sexual offenses compared to those convicted of similar actions while also detailing his intimate life with Gilbert, whom he married in 2013.
McNally also noted, however, that the opposite can also be true.
“A key issue in any child sex abuse prosecution is whether the defendant has a sexual interest in children. A report from a respected psychologist stating that a defendant in a child sex abuse [case] does not likely have a sexual interest in children can be helpful to the defense if admitted at trial,” he said.
Los Angeles–based entertainment attorney Tre Lovell of The Lovell Firm (who is not involved in Busfield’s case) also spoke to Us and warned, “These evaluations can be admitted as evidence on a limited or restricted basis to rebut a defendant’s expert or to rebut claims of a lack of sexual interest. However, it cannot be admitted to prove the defendant committed the sexual crime or that the sexual abuse occurred. It’s primarily a tool for the judge either before a trial or after a conviction.”
McNally cautioned that “psychosexual reports cannot establish whether abuse occurred.”
Lovell agreed, telling Us that the tests like the one Busfield took “cannot be used to prove the defendant is guilty or that the abuse occurred. Its use is more of a means to assess psychological factors and assess risk that someone may have a sexual proclivity to a certain class of people or in general, and to guide in recommended treatment or assess risk of reoffending if a defendant is found guilty.”
According to McNally, many prosecutors believe that psychosexual reports are “junk science,” noting they are “too subjective and there is not a solid methodology behind it.”
He also shared that jurors tend to place “less weight on psychological experts because they typically do not find the testimony as reliable as witnesses who saw an event and scientific evidence that is far more certain.”
Opposite of that, Lovell said that when allowed into trial, judges tend to give the sex psych tests “significant weight.”
Lovell explained, “This is because these evaluations consider an extensive amount of information, which includes someone’s personal history, sexual history, relationship history, substance abuse, mental health background, attitudes toward the offense and an evaluation of someone’s proclivity or risk level to commit a sexual offense as low, moderate or high.”
McNally and Lovell both acknowledged that psychosexual evaluations come with criticism.
“These tests are criticized as self-serving and many are skeptical of any test that can be subject to manipulation by an offender,” McNally told Us, adding we should have “confidence” in the process and our jury system.
Lovell noted, “Defendants are extensively prepared by their attorneys prior to the evaluation with the knowledge that the results can be used against them. Many people often misunderstand the nature and purpose of these evaluations, and, within the public arena, such may be used to assess guilt in the minds of the public.”
Busfield’s legal team might already have swayed public opinion by sharing his results, according to the experts.
“There’s always a potential for jury taint when information about a case is publicly disclosed before trial. That’s especially the case in high-profile trials. But typically these concerns can be addressed in the jury selection process,” McNally said.
“It could prove extremely effective in convincing a jury of the credibility for the circumstances or issues to which it is being offered,” Lovell added.
Earlier this month, authorities in New Mexico issued an arrest warrant for Busfield after he was accused of inappropriate behavior toward a child actor on the set of The Cleaning Lady.
Busfield denied the allegations and ultimately turned himself in.
“I’m going to confront these lies. They’re horrible. They’re all lies, and I did not do anything to those little boys,” Busfield claimed in a video shared with TMZ. “I’m going to fight it. I’m going to fight it with a great team, and I’m going to be exonerated. I know I am because this is all so wrong and all lies.”
During his hearing on Tuesday, the judge ordered Busfield’s release ahead of his trial. The ruling comes with stipulations, including that he must appear at all hearings, not possess a firearm and cannot have any contact with the alleged victims.
If you or someone you know is experiencing child abuse, call or text Child Help Hotline at 1-800-422-4453.
