‘Robust and Raring to Go?’– Judges' Perceptions of Child Witnesses

This article explores judicial perceptions of child witnesses. It considers the impact of recent legislation in England and Wales as well as in Scotland which classified all child witnesses as vulnerable and introduced a series of special measures to facilitate children's evidence. The article reports the findings of an empirical research study conducted with the judiciary in Scotland which suggests that judicial perceptions of child witnesses extend across a complex spectrum where a child may be viewed as vulnerable but is also likely to be seen as suggestible, reliable or resilient. The article advances two propositions. First, that the statutory conceptualization of children as invariably vulnerable has not displaced established beliefs concerning children's suggestibility and therefore has made little difference to perceptions of their ability to produce reliable testimony. Second, that focusing on children's potential for resilience rather than their vulnerability may prove a more productive conceptualization of children, one which could better support their capability as witnesses.     

The effect of a judicial declaration of competence on the perceived credibility of children and defendants

Purpose. Three studies were conducted to determine the effect of a judicial declaration of competence on perceptions of credibility towards a child witness and an adult defendant. Methods. Undergraduates read vignettes about a 5‐ or a 13‐year‐old child witness or an adult involved in either a sexual assault case or a motor vehicle accident case. In the child conditions, the case was either preceded by a declaration of the child's competence to testify (either specific or general declaration) or there was no mention of the competence of the child. Participants then rated the perceived credibility of both the complainant/witness and the defendant. Results. A judicial declaration of competence that was targeted at the particular child sometimes increased the credibility ratings of the child and decreased those of the defendant, sometimes to levels beyond those observed in the adult conditions. These effects on credibility were not replicated when a general declaration of all children's competence was used. In fact, the general declaration sometimes resulted in more positive ratings of the defendant. Conclusions. These results are discussed in the context of recommendations for the use of competence evaluations and declarations of competence in court.     

The susceptibility of child witnesses to suggestion

This article deals with the reliability of child witnesses, in particular from the viewpoint that child witnesses should be treated with suspicion because their memories are very susceptible to suggestion. An experiment is reported, in which grade 3, grade 6, and college students were compared on their ability to recall events from a film, in the face of (mis)leading questions from an interrogator. The data showed that the grade 6 students were equal to the college students in memory capacity and in their ability to resist suggestion. The grade 3 students were inferior to the older subjects in these areas. However, the results from a second testing session led to the conclusion that although the younger children appeared to submit to suggestion much more readily than the older subjects, the effect of suggestion on actual memory was not significantly different for the three subject-groups. The implications of these findings are discussed with reference to the present status of child witnesses in Anglo-Saxon law systems.     

澳大利亚专家证据可采性规则研究

在科学技术突飞猛进的时代,随着社会分工的细化和专业化程度的提高,专家证据在诉讼中的作用越来越大。澳大利亚的专家证人制度虽起源于英国,但经过独立后几十年的发展,颇具特色,尤其是在专家证据的可采性方面,已形成了一整套相当具体、完备的规则,如专门知识规则、专家性规则、普通知识规则、基本规则和终局性问题规则等。为了克服专家证据带有偏向性和专家证人被滥用的弊端,澳大利亚在当前的司法改革中提出了不少相应的对策,这为我国亟待改革的司法鉴定制度提供了一些有益的借鉴。     

Assessing children's competency to take the oath in court: The influence of question type on children's accuracy

This study examined children's accuracy in response to truth-lie competency questions asked in court. The participants included 164 child witnesses in criminal child sexual abuse cases tried in Los Angeles County over a 5-year period (1997-2001) and 154 child witnesses quoted in the U.S. state and federal appellate cases over a 35-year period (1974-2008). The results revealed that judges virtually never found children incompetent to testify, but children exhibited substantial variability in their performance based on question-type. Definition questions, about the meaning of the truth and lies, were the most difficult largely due to errors in response to "Do you know" questions. Questions about the consequences of lying were more difficult than questions evaluating the morality of lying. Children exhibited high rates of error in response to questions about whether they had ever told a lie. Attorneys rarely asked children hypothetical questions in a form that has been found to facilitate performance. Defense attorneys asked a higher proportion of the more difficult question types than prosecutors. The findings suggest that children's truth-lie competency is underestimated by courtroom questioning and support growing doubts about the utility of the competency requirements.     

Expert evidence accountability: new developments and challenges

A series of developments in relation to the accountability of expert witnesses and the admissibility of their opinions is taking place. This extends to encroachments in the United Kingdom on expert witness immunity, the imposition of disciplinary liability for registered health practitioners in Australia and the United Kingdom, and recommendations from the United Kingdom Law Commission for a systematised procedure for reliability determination as a prerequisite for admissibility rulings. This combination of measures is indicative of international concern about the contemporary role of expert witnesses. It highlights the need for both empirical information about whether the anecdotal and experiential concerns about expert evidence are well-founded and for the provision of better and clearer guidance to experts and litigators alike about the underpinnings and methodologies that are permissible for admissible and probative expert opinions.     

专家证据的价值与我国司法鉴定制度的修改

随着科学技术的飞速发展,专家证据在诉讼中发挥着越来越重要的作用。在英美法系国家,专家证据制度在专家证人资格规定上的广泛性和选任上的自由性,使其在适用上具有灵活性和实用性的特点,其详细而完备的专家证据可采性规则,更是司法经验的积累与法官智慧的结晶。英美法系国家的专家证据制度和大陆法系的鉴定制度,在近些年的改革中呈现出共同的趋向,如启动程序的多样化、过错责任的严格化和庭审对抗的强化,这为完善我国司法鉴定制度、准确适用新刑诉法中有关专家辅助人的规定以及充分发挥专家证据的作用开启了新的思路。面对我国司法鉴定中依然相当混乱的鉴定主体问题,构建鉴定人、专家顾问和专家辅助人三位一体的司法鉴定主体格局,或许是一条比较合理可行的出路。     

Children's Lie-Telling to Conceal a Parent's Transgression: Legal Implications

Children's lie-telling behavior to conceal the transgression of a parent was examined in 2 experiments. In Experiment 1 (N = 137), parents broke a puppet and told their children (3-11-year-olds) not to tell anyone. Children answered questions about the event. Children's moral understanding of truth- and lie-telling was assessed by a second interviewer and the children then promised to tell the truth (simulating court competence examination procedures). Children were again questioned about what happened to the puppet. Regardless of whether the interview was conducted with their parent absent or present, most children told the truth about their parents' transgression. When the likelihood of the child being blamed for the transgression was reduced, significantly more children lied. There was a significant, yet limited, relation between children's lie-telling behavior and their moral understanding of lie- or truth-telling. Further, after children were questioned about issues concerning truth- and lie-telling and asked to promise to tell the truth, significantly more children told the truth about their parents' transgression. Experiment 2 (N = 64) replicated these findings, with children who were questioned about lies and who then promised to tell the 'truth more likely to tell the truth in a second interview than children who did not participate in this procedure before questioning. Implications for the justice system are discussed.     

Adults’ Judgments of Children's Coached Reports

This study investigated adults’ judgments of the honesty of children's coached true and fabricated mock testimony. Adults saw video clips of children testifying in a mock court about a true or fabricated event in their lives. They were asked to make an assessment of the truthfulness of the testimony, and respond to questions about their perception of children's credibility. Half of the adults saw children testifying after a competence examination, and the other half saw children testifying without a competence examination. Overall, girls were rated as more competent than boys, and their testimony was more likely to be believed. Younger children were more likely to be rated as incompetent than older children. A factor analysis of adults’ responses revealed six factors which significantly predicted adults’ overall assessment of children's credibility, and their evaluations of children's competence to testify. Adults’ detection accuracy was at chance, with the majority of children rated as truthful. Viewing the competency examination and cross-examination did not improve the adults’ detection accuracy. However, seeing the cross-examination made adults’ less likely to believe children's testimony. The implications of these results for the judicial system are discussed.     

Judicial decision-making in family court involving children with autism spectrum disorder

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children and adolescents has increased over the past decade. Consequently, the courts and experts are more likely to be exposed to these children whose needs are highly heterogeneous. The present study aims to document judicial decision-making about children with autism spectrum as well as the parenting recommendations made by experts involved in these cases. There were 104 court decisions reviewed in Quebec over the past ten years. The results show that 85.6% of the decisions included a child custody assessment and that judges are more likely to order primary care to mother (56%). However, shared parenting (27%) and primary care to the father (17%) were also ordered in disputes involving an autistic child. Bivariate analyses revealed that challenges with parental monitoring and supervision were associated with court-ordered parenting arrangements. The present study revealed that a child custody assessment as well as father custody are more often observed than in the general population. This study highlights the need for further research to shed light on the best interests of children with ASD following the separation of their parents.     

英国证人制度评介--兼谈我国民事证人制度之完善

证人提供的证言是民事诉讼证据的一种,对于法官裁判具有重要意义。对英、美等国家民事诉讼中的证人资格、证人权利和义务以及证言的提供程序等问题进行了分析。并针对中国目前民事证人制度方面的立法及司法实践现状,提出了完善中国证人制度的构想。     

Beliefs about child witnesses: A survey of professionals

This research addressed how professionals involved with the legal system evaluate children, primarily between 4 and 8 years old, as witnesses. In particular, we focused on professionals’ beliefs and opinions regarding children's memory, suggestibility, and behaviors as they relate to witness credibility. In addition, we surveyed professionals’ evaluations of investigative methods related to reliability. Four hundred and seventy-eight professionals working with children in the Norwegian legal system (i.e. judges, police detectives, psychologists, child psychiatrists, prosecutors, and defense attorneys) completed a questionnaire about child witness issues. Results indicated that psychiatrists as well as police officers expressed greater belief in children's capacities than did other groups, whereas defense attorneys and psychologists were more skeptical regarding children's general credibility. Psychiatrists and psychologists both, however, tended to favor, more than did legal professionals, the use of clinical techniques with children in abuse investigations. Implications are discussed in relation to professionals’ attitudes toward children as witnesses.     

Child witnesses in criminal court

The last decade has witnessed a dramatic rise in public and professional concern regarding the special needs of children as witnesses in the court setting. This study was conducted to examine characteristics of criminal court cases involving children as potential witnesses that were adjudicated through a trial conviction, trial acquittal, or guilty plea, from among cases that went to court in a 12-month period in nine judicial circuits in three states. Three hundred sixteen criminal court cases involving children as potential witnesses were examined. The vast majority, of these cases involved sexual crimes against children. The results indicated that relatively few (16.8%) adjudicated cases were resolved through a trial proceeding. Sentencing varied from state to state and as a function of the disposition of the case. Future research should be conducted prospectively to determine (a) whether cases involving children as witnesses in criminal court are prosecuted at lower rates than cases involving adults and (b) the reasons that cases leave the criminal justice system prior to any court actions.This research was supported by State Justice Institute grant No. 88-11J-D-064. Points of view or opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.     

证人、鉴定人出庭作证费用补偿范围和标准研究

我国现行《民事诉讼法》及司法解释中关于证人出作证庭费用之规范存在补偿范围不具体和补偿标准不明晰等诸多问题，关于鉴定人出庭费用的补偿范围和标准之规定更是付之阙如。民事司法实践中各地方法院关于证人、鉴定人出庭费用的补偿范围和标准的认定混乱且随意性大，严重损害了当事人的合法权益。《民诉法解释》规定“按照机关事业单位工作人员差旅费和补贴为标准”计算证人出庭作证费用更是有违平等原则。我国民诉立法应在厘清证人、鉴定人出庭作证费用性质的基础上，采用列举规范的方式明确规定证人、鉴定人出庭费用的补偿范围，统一并明晰证人、鉴定人的补偿标准。     

Children’s and parents’ involvement in care order proceedings: a cross-national comparison of judicial decision-makers’ views and experiences

This paper presents the views of judicial decision-makers (n = 1794) in four child protection jurisdictions (England, Finland, Norway, and the USA (California)), about whether parents and children are provided with appropriate opportunities to participate in proceedings in their countries. Overall, the study found a high degree of agreement within and between the countries as regards the important conditions for parents’ and children´s involvement, although the four systems themselves are very different. There was less agreement about children’s involvement than parents’, and the court decision-makers from Norway and Finland were more likely to express doubts about this. Nevertheless, the main message from the judicial decision-makers is that they are relatively satisfied as to how parents’ and children´s involvement is handled in their countries. Whether or not this confidence is justified, the emphasis on achieving effective involvement of children and parents in court proceedings is likely to grow, with major implications for the workers, decision-makers and agencies involved.     

专家证人模式与司法鉴定模式之比较

专家证人模式与司法鉴定模式是英美法系和大陆法系在解决专门性事实问题上两种不同的模式。两者在法律文化基础、有关专家的诉讼地位和资格、程序启动、质证、证据能力和证明力上都有很大的不同。然而,由于两种模式都存在其固有的缺陷,近年来各国都在进行相应的改革,出现了相互融合和借鉴的趋势。     

POSTDECREE LITIGATION Is Joint Custody to Blame?

The Joint Custody Symposium Project examined almost 600 court files in five judicial districts to investigate the common perception that joint custody contributes significantly to relitigation rates. Data indicated that joint custody as a factor accounted for only 10.8% of court returns. Financial concerns accounted for the majority of actions. Disputes over child custody appeared to be related to finances as well. Unfortunately, returns to court do not necessarily resolve the financial needs of divorced parents. The findings suggest that children may be used as pawns in court battles over money that are disguised as parenting concerns, as evidenced by the close relationship found between visitation or custody disputes and child support modification filings.