The comment was reported to the local authorities, and all the children at the Wee Care Nursery School were questioned.
[8] Upon conviction, when asked whether they actually believed some of the more sordid claims from the children, prosecutors Glenn Goldberg and Sara McArdle answered "No" and "Oh, absolutely" simultaneously.
[11] The defense argued that Michaels had not had the opportunity to take the children to a location where all of the alleged activities could have taken place without being noticed.
"[14] A three-judge panel ruled she had been denied a fair trial because "the prosecution of the case had relied on testimony that should have been excluded because it improperly used an expert's theory, called the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome, to establish guilt.
"[17] The major hurdle was that "if the state decided to reprosecute Michaels, it must produce 'clear and convincing evidence' that the statements and testimony elicited by the improper interview techniques are reliable enough to warrant admission.
"[17] During Michaels’ appeal, researchers Maggie Bruck and Stephen Ceci prepared an amicus brief regarding the case that pointed out several problems with the children's testimony that was the primary evidence.
Some of the issues that were addressed were the role of interviewer bias, repeated questions, peer pressure, and the use of anatomically correct dolls in contaminating the children's testimony.
)[4] Interviews from the Wee Care Nursery School and McMartin preschool trials were examined as part of a research project on the testimony of children questioned in a highly suggestive manner.