Brief Research Report: Age Factors Affecting the Believability of Repressed Memories of Child Sexual Assault

Two experiments investigated how mock jurors react to testimony involving claims of a repressed memory in a case involving child sexual assault. Participants read a fictional civil trial summary presented in one of three conditions: (a) immediate condition—the alleged victim testified immediately after the incident; (b) repressed condition—the alleged victim reported the assault 1–39 years later, after remembering it for the first time; or (c) not-repressed condition—the alleged victim reported the assault 1–39 years later, but the memory of the assault had been present for those years. When there was any type of delayed reporting, either the age of the alleged victim at the time of the assault was constant and her age at reporting varied (Experiment 1) or the age of the alleged victim at the time of the assault varied and her age at reporting remained constant (Experiment 2). The results showed that (1) a delay in reporting an incident adversely affected believability of the alleged victim and led to fewer rulings in support of the plaintiff compared to reporting it immediately, (2) longer delays in reporting generally led to lower alleged victim believability and fewer decisions in support of the plaintiff than shorter delays, (3) the age of the alleged victim at the time of the incident was a critical variable in determining belief of the alleged victim, and (4) men generally rated believability of the alleged victim lower and ruled in favor of the plaintiff less often than women. The results are discussed in terms of the psychosocial factors affecting the perception of delayed reporting in a child sexual assault trial.     

The believability of repressed memories

Two experiments investigated how mock jurors react to a case involving a repressed memory of child sexual assault. Subjects read a fictional civil trial (Experiment 1) or criminal trial (Experiment 2) summary involving the sexual assault of a 6-year-old female. The summary was presented in one of three conditions: (a)child condition: the alleged victim reported her memory of the assault in the same year that the assault occurred; (b)repressed condition: the alleged victim reported the assault 20 years later, after remembering it for the first time; or (c)no-repressed condition: the alleged victim reported the assault 20 years later, but the memory of the assault had been present for the 20 years. Although the testimony of the alleged victim was believed to some extent in all conditions, the alleged victim in the child condition was believed at the highest level, and this was associated with more decisions against the defendant. The results are discussed in terms of how delayed reporting of child sexual assault crimes is associated with lower believability of the alleged victim.We would like to thank Christy Kennedy, Paula Brinegar, and Elizabeth Thomas for their assistance in collecting and scoring the data, as well as Michael Nietzel, Monica Kern, Ronald Roesch, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.     

The impact of protective shields and videotape testimony on conviction rates in a simulated trial of child sexual abuse

In Experiment 1 mock jurors watched a videotape simulation of a sexual abuse trial that included a 10-year-old child witness testifying in one of three different modalities: (1) The child testified in court while directly confronting the defendant (open court condition). (2) The child testified in court with a protective shield placed between the child and the defendant (shield condition). (3) The child testified outside the courtroom and the child's testimony was presented to the jury and the defendant on a video monitor (video condition). The mock jurors judged the guilt of the defendant after watching the entire trial. The modality of the child's testimony had no impact on conviction rates. In Experiment 2 subjects watched the same trial that was used in Experiment 1. The trial was stopped immediately after the child testified (the child was the first witness to take the stand), and subjects judged the guilt of the defendant. The modality of the child's testimony had a significant impact on conviction rates. Subjects in the open court condition were more likely to convict the defendant than subjects in the shield and videotape conditions. These findings are relevant to Supreme Court decisions regarding the use of protective devices with child witnesses.     

性侵儿童案中被害人陈述可信度判断研究

在性侵儿童案中,由于被害儿童身心特点,导致其作证能力和证言可信度常存在争议。但实际上年幼不是否认儿童作证能力的决定性因素。在性侵儿童案件中,要摒弃过度纠缠于对儿童作证能力的争议,将作证能力与证言可信度分开,肯定其作证能力,而着重判断证言可信度。通过对371份性侵儿童案件的裁判文书的分析可知,判断儿童被害人陈述可信度的因素与判断成年被害人陈述可信度的因素大致相同,同时实践中也结合儿童的特点提出了有针对性的考量因素。因此,对"童言"过于忌惮实无必要。在判断儿童被害人陈述可信度时,可以主要依靠判断被害人(证人)可信度的通常方法,同时更多地引入专家证人/辅助人帮助理解儿童行为和心理特点。这样将有助于解决儿童作证涉及的证明问题,更好地保护儿童权益。     

When Does Quality Count?: Perceptions of Hearsay Testimony About Child Sexual Abuse Interviews

This study assessed how the quality of a sexual abuse investigative interview with a child and the age of the child influence jurors reactions to either the original interview with the child or to testimony by an adult hearsay witness (the interviewer). Participants (N = 360) were randomly assigned to 1 of 12 conditions in a 2 (type of testimony:hearsay testimony vs. child interview) × (interview quality: poor, typical, or good) × (age of the child: 4 years old vs. 10 years old) factorial design. Participants reached individual verdicts, answered a series of questions, and then deliberated in a group with five other participants. As predicted, jurors in the child interview conditions were more likely to find the defendant guilty if they read the good interview than if they read either the poor or the typical interview, but in the hearsay conditions verdicts did not significantly differ by interview quality. These findings suggest that there is a significant loss of information when the testimony of a hearsay witness is used in place of the actual interview with the child, and call into question the appropriateness of admitting hearsay testimony by interviewers.     

Hearsay Versus Children's Testimony: Effects of Truthful and Deceptive Statements on Jurors’ Decisions

Researchers and courts are focusing increasing attention on the reliability of children's out-of-court statements, especially in relation to trials of child sexual abuse. The main goal of this study was to investigate the effects of presentation of children's out-of-court statements (e.g., hearsay) on jurors' perceptions of witness credibility and defendant guilt, and on jurors' abilities to reach the truth. Child participants experienced either a mock crime or were coached to say they experienced the crime when in fact they had not. During elaborate mock trials involving community member jurors, children's testimony was presented either: (1) live, (2) on videotape, or (3) via a social worker. Analyses revealed that testimony format directly influenced jurors' perceptions of child and social worker credibility (e.g., children were perceived as less likely to provide false statements if they testified live) as well as jurors' sympathy toward the child, all of which then predicted jurors' confidence in defendant guilt. Jurors had difficulty discerning accurate from deceptive child statements regardless of testimony format. Implications for psychology and the legal system are discussed.     

The Effect of Gender in the Perception of Elder Physical Abuse in Court

Two experiments investigated mock jurors' perceptions of elder abuse (EA) in a physical assault case. In Experiment 1, participants read a fictional criminal trial summary of a physical assault case in which the alleged victim was 66, 76, or 86 years old. In Experiment 2, the age of the alleged victim was 76 years old, but the gender of the alleged victim and the gender of the defendant were crossed. The results of the experiments showed that women believed the alleged victim more and rendered a guilty verdict more often than men. Overall, the alleged victim was believed more than the defendant regardless of the age of the alleged victim, and most verdicts were guilty. These results are discussed in terms of the factors that affect perceptions of alleged victims of EA in court.     

Ageism in the courtroom: mock juror perceptions of elder neglect

The present study explored ageism in a civil court context. In two experiments, male and female undergraduates (Experiment 1; N?=?215) and community members (Experiment 2; N?=?203) read an institutional elder neglect trial summary in which a nursing home was sued for failure to provide the necessary care for an elderly female resident. The trial varied as to who provided witness testimony: the live victim, a recorded deposition from the victim, the victim’s middle-aged niece (Experiments 1, 2), the victim’s elderly floor-mate (Experiment 1), or no testimony was provided (Experiment 2). Across both experiments, higher ageism was negatively associated with pro-victim ratings (e.g. victim memory). Ageism indirectly decreased the likelihood of ruling for the plaintiff through ratings of sympathy for the victim and victim memory (Experiment 1), and defendant responsibility (Experiment 2). Trial ratings did not differ based on whether victim testimony was presented live or via recorded deposition (Experiments 1, 2). The results suggest that jurors’ ageist attitudes may engender negative perceptions of an elderly victim, which can affect the outcome of neglect cases. We discuss the potential for these findings to inform legal proceedings and protection of elderly individuals.     

OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS BY VICTIMS OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE TO MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAMS: A CONFRONTATION CLAUSE ANALYSIS

Acknowledging the rapid growth of child sexual abuse in the United States, this Note advocates for the recognition of a limited exception to the blanket-hearsay ban on out-of-court statements made by unavailable declarants set out by the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington . In order to protect a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation right, Crawford requires that hearsay evidence that is "testimonial" in nature be deemed inadmissible if the witness is unavailable and the defendant does not have a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness against him. However, Crawford noted that, where nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, cross-examination may not be necessary. Accordingly, where a child sexual abuse victim makes statements during a structured or semi-structured forensic interview to a member of a multidisciplinary team, these statements should be deemed nontestimonial and thus admitted into evidence, without requiring cross-examination of the child. Allowing for this exception to the general hearsay ban in Crawford is not only consistent with current precedent, but it is also warranted to promote public policy and to curb the negative impact such abuse has on society.     

Educating Jurors about Forensic Evidence: Using an Expert Witness and Judicial Instructions to Mitigate the Impact of Invalid Forensic Science Testimony

Invalid expert witness testimony that overstated the precision and accuracy of forensic science procedures has been highlighted as a common factor in many wrongful conviction cases. This study assessed the ability of an opposing expert witness and judicial instructions to mitigate the impact of invalid forensic science testimony. Participants (N = 155) acted as mock jurors in a sexual assault trial that contained both invalid forensic testimony regarding hair comparison evidence, and countering testimony from either a defense expert witness or judicial instructions. Results showed that the defense expert witness was successful in educating jurors regarding limitations in the initial expert's conclusions, leading to a greater number of not-guilty verdicts. The judicial instructions were shown to have no impact on verdict decisions. These findings suggest that providing opposing expert witnesses may be an effective safeguard against invalid forensic testimony in criminal trials.     

对强制证人到庭例外规定的思考——评《刑事诉讼法》第188条第1款

2012年修改的《刑事诉讼法》第188条第一款规定＂经人民法院通知,证人没有正当理由不出庭作证的,人民法院可以强制其到庭,但是被告人的配偶、父母、子女除外。＂这一规定并未赋予特定亲属拒绝作证权。《刑事诉讼法》一方面要求被告人的上述亲属必须提供相关证言,同时又允许这些特定亲属拒绝出庭,实际上是以维护家庭关系之名,严重妨害了被告人的对质权,有必要以法治国家通行的亲属拒绝作证权取代强制证人到庭例外规定。     

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 genuine victim and prosecutors’ charging decisions in sexual assault cases

This study examined the effect of victim characteristics and evidence factors on prosecutors’ decisions to file charges in sexual assault cases. Social scientists and legal scholars argue that sexual assault case processing decisions are affected by stereotypes of real rapes and genuine victims. They assert that complainants whose backgrounds and behavior conform to the image of a genuine victim will be taken more seriously, and their allegations treated more seriously, than complainants whose backgrounds and behavior are at odds with this image. We used a sample of arrests for sexual assault made by the Detroit Police Department in 1989 to test these assertions. We combined six victim characteristics to create a genuine victim scale, and we examined the effect of this scale, as well as a number of evidence factors, on prosecutors’ charging decisions. We performed separate analyses on cases with child victims and cases with adolescent or adult victims. We found that the genuine victim scale did not influence charging decisions in cases with child victims, but was theonly significant predictor in cases involving adolescent or adult victims. In contrast, none of the four evidence factors affected charging in cases with adult victims, and only one of these factors was related to charging in cases involving children. These findings suggest that prosecutors attempt to avoid uncertainty by screening out sexual assault cases unlikely to result in a conviction because of questions about the victim’s character, the victim’s behavior, and the victim’s credibility. This paper is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SES-9010826. Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the National Science Foundataion.     

Jurors' Use of Hearsay Evidence: The Effects of Type and Timing of Instructions

To examine the effects of curative judicial instructions on jurors' perceptions of hearsay testimony, mock jurors (N = 180) were exposed to one of six versions of a trial that included proprosecution hearsay evidence accompanied by either disregard or limiting instructions, presented either immediately after the hearsay, at the end of the trial, or at both of these times. Also included were control conditions in which (1) the information was presented as nonhearsay (first-hand), (2) no hearsay was presented, or (3) the hearsay was presented without instructions. Results indicated that neither the hearsay nor the instructions, regardless of their form or timing, affected verdicts. In fact, findings revealed that participants may have disregarded the hearsay regardless of instructions heard. There was some evidence to suggest, however, that evaluations of other admissible evidence presented by the hearsay witness were negatively affected.