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.     

What Makes Recovered-Memory Testimony Compelling to Jurors?

Little is known about how jurors arrive at verdicts in cases involving recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. Study 1 investigated mock jurors' reactions to the recovered-memory testimony of an alleged victim when a therapist intervened with hypnosis, suggestion, or symptom management. When a therapist used hypnosis, jurors viewed the victim's recovered-memory testimony as particularly accurate and credible, and favored the victim in their verdicts. In Study 2, mock jurors were presented with a therapist who was sued for allegedly influencing a client's recall of false memories of abuse. In this case, however, jurors viewed therapists who used hypnosis or suggestion as more likely to have created false memories, more responsible for having caused harm, and less competent, and tended not to favor these therapists in their verdicts. We discuss these seemingly contradictory findings in terms of how culturally formed expectancies about hypnosis produce different causal explanations depending on the focus of a trial.     

Medical Evidence and Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse

Expert medical testimony in child sexual abuse cases can be critical to the outcome of a legal case. This article will review the development of the medical knowledge and clinical expertise in child sexual abuse. Since the passage of mandatory child abuse reporting laws, the forensic medical examination of a child for evidence of sexual abuse has become standard. Until recently, many myths regarding female genital anatomy existed but were based primarily on dogma and lack of empirical research. Over the past 25 years, many research studies and accumulating clinical evidence have expanded medical knowledge and debunked old myths. Physical evidence, even in cases of alleged genital or anal penetration is rare. Sexually transmitted infections are also uncommon and often require medical interpretation as to their significance in a prepubertal child. Specialized medical knowledge, training, and clinical expertise have developed in order to evaluate children presenting with allegations of sexual abuse. Such medical expertise provides invaluable service to courts. We review criteria for evaluating such expertise in light of current medical practice.     

Expert Testimony Regarding Child Witnesses: Does It Sensitize Jurors to Forensic Interview Quality?

Does expert testimony on forensic interviews with children help adults distinguish between poorly conducted and well-conducted interviews? This study evaluates the effects of social framework expert testimony regarding child witnesses in a case involving allegations of child sexual abuse. A 2 (Expert Testimony: present or absent) × 3 (Child Forensic Interview Quality: poor, typical, or good) × 2 (Child’s Age: 4- or 10-year-old) factorial design was used to examine whether expert testimony is prejudicial or beneficial to jurors (N = 463). The results revealed that, without expert testimony, mock jurors did not consider the forensic interview quality when reaching a verdict. However, with expert testimony, mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts if the interview quality was good versus poor. Further expert testimony increased mock jurors’ knowledge about child witnesses. These findings suggest that expert testimony related to the impact of interview techniques on the reliability of children’s reports may assist fact-finders in evaluating child abuse cases.     

Expert psychiatric evidence in sexual misconduct cases before state medical boards.

The growing problem of physician sexual misconduct has captured the attention not only of the medical and legal communities, but of the public as well. State medical boards, administrative agencies with generous rules of evidence and varying levels of expertise, face the difficult task of responding to patients' allegations of physician sexual abuse. This Article, based in large part on the author's survey of current state medical board practice, reveals an increasing reliance on expert psychiatric testimony to explain the behavior of complainants and accused physicians. Drawing analogies from the use of psychiatric evidence in child sexual abuse cases, the author examines the factors that boards must consider in determining the admissibility of expert testimony in physician sexual misconduct cases, and calls upon states to establish clear evidentiary rules to govern the use of such testimony in administrative hearings.     

Court evaluations of young children's testimony in child sexual abuse cases

Purpose

Prosecutors working with child sexual abuse (CSA) cases involving young children have raised concerns that reliability criteria from the Supreme Court of Sweden are holding children's testimony to impossible standards (e.g., expecting the child's testimony to be long, rich in detail and spontaneous). This study aimed to address these concerns by investigating how District Courts and Courts of Appeal employ said criteria in their testimonial assessments of young child complainants.

Methods

Court documents from District Courts (n = 100) and Courts of Appeal (n = 45) in CSA cases involving 100 children age 7 years and under were analysed with respect to the courts’ testimonial assessments.

Results

Testimonial assessments were more frequently referenced in acquitting verdicts and in cases with evidence of low corroborative value. Richness in detail was the most frequently used reliability criterion, followed by spontaneity. Most criteria were used in favour of the children's testimony. However, the length criterion was typically used against the reliability of the children's testimony.

Conclusions

Our findings confirm prosecutors’ concerns that criteria from the Supreme Court are frequently used in evaluations of young children's testimony. This is troublesome, as some criteria do not correspond to current research on young children's witness abilities. For example, compared to testimony given by older children or adults, testimony provided by a young child is typically not long or rich in detail. We encourage prosecutors to extend their own knowledge on young children's capability as witnesses and present this to the court.     

Psychiatric aspects of sexual abuse

Sexual abuse of children and adolescents has become an increasingly publicized phenomenon. Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are often called upon to evaluate and treat children and adolescents who may have been sexually abused, to provide counseling or treatment to the families of such children, and to provide reports and testimony for proceedings about such cases in the child protection system, the criminal justice system, and in custody disputes. Clarity regarding the medical, psychiatric, and legal aspects of sexual abuse is essential in carrying out such professional activities and in evaluating and formulating research on sexual abuse. In this paper current knowledge regarding these aspects of sexual abuse is summarized, and the role of psychiatrists in clinical and forensic work involving allegations of sexual abuse is discussed.     

Face-to-Face Confrontation: Effects of Closed-Circuit Technology on Children's Eyewitness Testimony and Jurors' Decisions

The present study was designed to examine effects of closed-circuit technology on children's testimony and jurors' perceptions of child witnesses. For the study, a series of elaborately staged mock trials was held. First, 5- to 6-year-old and 8- to 9-year-old children individually participated in a play session with an unfamiliar male confederate. Approximately 2 weeks later, children individually testified about the event at a downtown city courtroom. Mock juries composed of community recruits viewed the trials, with the child's testimony presented either live in open court or over closed-circuit television. Mock jurors made ratings concerning the child witness and the defendant, and deliberated to reach a verdict. Results indicated that overall, older children were more accurate witnesses than younger children. However, older, not younger children produced more inaccurate information in free recall. Compared to live testimony in open court, use of closed-circuit technology led to decreased suggestibility for younger children. Testifying in open court was also associated with children experiencing greater pretrial anxiety. Closed-circuit technology did not diminish factfinders' abilities to discriminate accurate from inaccurate child testimony, nor did it directly bias jurors against the defendant. However, closed-circuit testimony biased jurors against child witnesses. Moreover, jurors tended to base their impressions of witness credibility on perceived confidence and consistency. Implications for the use of closed- circuit technology when children testify are discussed.     

The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial

Mock jurors viewed a videotape of a simulated child sexual abuse trial and then deliberated to a unanimous verdict. The complainant was described as either a 13- or 17-year-old female child. Jurors voted to convict more often when the younger complainant was seen, and the younger complainant was rated as more credible than the older complainant. Female jurors voted the defendant guilty more often and rated the complainant as being more credible than male jurors. Jurors voted to convict more often and rated the defendant as less credible when expert psychological testimony was specific to the case than when they were presented with either general expert testimony or no expert testimony. Jurors who saw a psychological expert testify became less accepting of child sexual abuse misconceptions than those in the no expert control condition. The implications of these findings are discussed.Millbrook Correctional Centre     

Expert Evidence Pertaining to Battered Women: The Impact of Gender of Expert and Timing of Testimony

The present study investigated the impact of two variables relating to general expert testimony pertaining to battered women on juror decision processes. Specifically, the gender of the expert, as well as the timing of the presentation of the testimony, were investigated in a simulated homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Results indicated that when the expert was female and the testimony was presented prior to the defendant's testimony, jurors' verdicts were more lenient. Moreover, across a range of case judgments, male jurors' perceptions were more favorable to the defendant when the expert was female as opposed to male. On two of the judgments this latter pattern of results was only evidenced when the testimony was presented early as opposed to late. The significance of these findings is discussed.     

Taking the stand: defendant statements in court cases of alleged sexual abuse against infants,toddlers and preschoolers

Investigating and adjudicating allegations of child sexual abuse are challenging tasks. In the present study, we examined defendant statements concerning charges of sexual abuse against young children in Swedish district court cases (87 defendants, 140 child complainants, tried between January 2010 to December 2015). A main objective was to test predictive factors for admissions of guilt using inferential statistical analyses. Furthermore, using qualitative thematical analysis, we sought to identify common patterns in the defendants’ explanations to the allegation. Approximately one-third of the defendants (31%) pleaded guilty during trial. Admissions of guilt were more likely if the defendant was young, if the child was young at the onset of abuse, if the child and perpetrator had an extrafamilial relationship, and if the defendant possessed child pornography. A conflict with the person who made the report (e.g. a custody dispute), a testimony from the child, a direct eyewitness, or an informal disclosure recipient were significantly more common in cases of denials. In the qualitative analysis, a range of alternative explanations behind the abuse allegations were identified. Legal professionals and investigators may benefit from considering these alternative hypotheses during their investigative and judicial work.     

A comparison of three studies of the influence of expert testimony on jurors

Three conceptual replications of the effects of expert testimony on jurors' decisions and behaviors were compared. Taken together, these studies demonstrated significant increases in jurors' scrutiny of the evidence presented to them and significant reductions in their beliefs in the general accuracy of eyewitness testimony. The overall effect of expert testimony had a combined probability ofp=.0000084. This means that these combined results would occur by sampling bias alone less than one time out of 100,000. Expert testimony accounted for 3% of the variance in verdicts and 68% of the variance in the time jurors deliberated about eyewitness testimony. Several implications of these findings for psychologists investigating eyewitness identification and for the criminal justice system are discussed.I would like to thank James V. Devine, Judith P. Goggin, Elizabeth F. Loftus, and Gary L. Wells for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this article.     

Empathy and Jurors' Decisions in Patricide Trials Involving Child Sexual Assault Allegations

In a mock-trial paradigm, 205 participants considered a patricide trial in which a child defendant claimed the patricide was done in self-defense after years of sexual abuse. Participants in an empathy-induction condition were asked to take the perspective of the defendant and to detail how they would be thinking and feeling if they were the defendant. Control condition participants received no such instructions. Results indicated that, compared to jurors in the control condition, jurors who were asked to take the defendant's perspective had more empathy for the defendant (without feeling more similar to or more sympathy for the defendant), found the defendant less guilty and less responsible for the murder, and were more likely to consider abuse to be a mitigating factor in the killing. Overall, compared to men, women were more likely to believe the defendant's abuse allegations, find the defendant credible, and consider the defendant to be less responsible for the murder. Women in the empathy condition found the defendant less guilty than did all other jurors. Finally, child defendant gender was also varied, but this had few effects on case judgments overall. Jurors, however, were more likely to believe that the girl defendant was sexually abused than the boy defendant. We discuss theoretical implications for understanding the social psychological construct of empathy as well as implications for understanding jurors' decisions in cases involving child sexual assault allegations.     

Do Jurors “Know” What Isn’t So About Child Witnesses?

Are expert witnesses needed in child sexual abuse cases to educate jurors about children’s memory, suggestibility, and reactions to abuse, or do jurors already know what such experts could tell them? To cast light on this question, we surveyed jurors and jury-eligible college students and compared their beliefs with what is known via scientific research regarding children’s memory and ability to testify, reactions to interrogation, and reactions to sexual abuse. We also asked participants to infer results of four widely cited studies of children’s suggestibility. Participants’ beliefs were consistent with findings from research on some issues (e.g., that children can be led to claim that false events occurred) but diverged from the scientific consensus on other issues (e.g., whether children can remember painful events in infancy). Similarly, participants sometimes overestimated and sometimes underestimated the level of suggestibility observed in empirical studies. Individual differences in accuracy were related to participants’ gender, education and ethnicity, and there was considerable disagreement among participants on many questions. Implications of findings for the admissibility of expert testimony in child abuse cases are discussed.     

An Archival Analysis of Actual Cases of Historic Child Sexual Abuse: A Comparison of Jury and Bench Trials

Logistic regression analyses were used to predict verdicts from 466 Canadian jury and 644 Canadian judge-alone criminal trials involving delayed or historic allegations of child sexual abuse. Variables in regard to the complainant and offence were selected from the legal, clinical, and experimental literatures, including mock juror research. Of six variables that had been related to decisions reached in mock juror research concerning delayed allegations of child sexual abuse (i.e., repressed memory testimony, involvement in therapy, length of delay, age of complainant, presence of experts, and frequency of abuse) two (age of complainant and presence of expert) predicted verdicts. An additional five variables (duration, severity, complainant–accused relationship, threats, and complainant gender) were also examined: of these, threats and the complainant–accused relationship reliably predicted jury verdicts. For judge-alone trials, five variables predicted verdict: length of the delay, offence severity, claims of repression, the relationship between complainant and accused, and presence of an expert. Implications of the jurors' and judges' differential sensitivity to these variables for future simulation and archival research are discussed.     

The Believability of Hearsay Testimony in a Child Sexual Assault Trial

Two experiments investigated how mock jurors react to hearsay testimony in a case involving child sexual assault. Participants read a fictional criminal trial summary involving the sexual assault of a 4-(Experiment 2 only), 6-, or 14-year-old female. The summaries were presented in one of four conditions: (a) child condition—the alleged victim testified; (b) hearsay condition—the alleged victim did not testify, but an adult hearsay witness did testify; (c) multiple condition (Experiment 1 only)—both the alleged victim and the adult hearsay witness testified; and (d) no-witness condition—neither the alleged victim nor the hearsay witness testified. The hearsay testimony was believed to a considerable degree, and this testimony led to an increase in the perceived guilt of the defendant. Moreover, these results were comparable to those of conditions in which the alleged victim testified. The results are discussed in terms of the psychosocial factors affecting the perception of hearsay testimony in a child sexual assault trial.     

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.