Julian

*880 Sports fans often use "statistical odds" to predict the outcome of a sporting event. Statistical odds, however, are not a substitute for admissible evidence to decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

Cody Adam Julian appeals a judgment following his conviction after a jury trial of four counts of lewd acts upon a child ( Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a) ) and one count of sexual penetration with a child under 10 years old ( id. , § 288.7, subd. (b)). We conclude, among other things, that 1) the People's expert witness introduced inadmissible statistical evidence that went beyond the permissible scope of child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS) evidence and deprived Julian of a fair trial; 2) Julian's counsel provided ineffective assistance by not objecting to this evidence; and 3) Julian's defense was prejudicially undermined by his counsel's question that *881 invited a police detective to give the opinion that the People's witness against Julian was credible. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

FACTS

Julian, 28 years old, moved into a home where four minor sisters resided - child 1, child 2, child 3, and child 4.

Child 2's Testimony

Child 2, 10 years…