A comparison of two forms of hearsay in child sexual abuse cases

Factors that Influence Mock Jurors' Perceptions of Child Credibility

Child sexual abuse (CSA) remains a significant societal problem; however, few CSA cases are actually brought to trial. The cases that do proceed to trial typically involve little evidence, therefore, it is imperative that legal professionals become more aware of possible factors that may contribute to jurors' perceptions of child complainants and in turn influence their case decisions. The goal of this study was to investigate the influence of jury instructions, child complainant age, child's level of sexual knowledge, and preexisting beliefs about CSA on mock jurors' child credibility ratings. Participants (N = 388) evaluated a mock CSA trial transcript and answered questions related to the child's credibility. Results indicated that child credibility was dependent on mock jurors' knowledge about CSA, which in turn, differed by mock juror gender. Pre-evidence jury instructions also influenced mock jurors' CSA misconception endorsements. Child sexual knowledge level did not influence credibility, nor did it interact with child age. Our study suggests that specialized pre-evidence jury instructions may educate legal fact finders about alleged CSA victims and in turn may enhance their views of children in this specific legal context.

The credibility of testimony from minors allegedly victims of abuse within the Italian legislative framework

The authors aim to analyze the key aspects related to the testimony of children who might have been victims of sexual harassment and abuse. The issue of medico-legal psychiatric assessment of minors who claim to have been sexually abused is extremely contentious and widely-debated, not only due to the growing spread of such claims, but also on account of the technical challenges it raises. For these reasons, national as well as European lawmakers have intervened by enacting new legislation, and scientific communities have established new sets of guidelines aimed at improving the overall conditions under which a child is called to testify as well as the process through which depositions are collected and evaluated, so as to ensure that any assessment of the reliability of the testimony is scientifically grounded. The authors also highlight the importance of regulatory measures meant to minimize the risk that the questioning of a child might negatively affect his or her emotional balance by limiting and lessening stressful conditions and anxiety, which may traumatize and irretrievably scar the child. Moreover, they stress the importance of dealing with the social issue of child abuse by strengthening a preventive set of measures.

When Is Neglect, Neglect?: It Depends on Who You Ask

In order to identify victims of child neglect, social service workers rely heavily on referrals from concerned friends, neighbors, and others in the community. Little is known, however, about how lay individuals perceive child neglect and what factors influence their decision to make a referral. This study explored the effects of child, parent, and participant gender on laypersons' evaluations of child neglect. Participants read a case of neglect of a child by a custodial and absent parent and then rated the parents' culpability and intentionality and decided whether the parents' behavior met the legal definition of neglect. When evaluating the custodial parent, men but not women viewed fathers as more culpable than mothers for the neglect of their son and viewed mothers as somewhat more culpable for the neglect of their daughter. Men also perceived absent mothers as more intentionally harmful than absent fathers. Finally, both men and women were more likely to qualify parental behavior as legally neglectful when the genders of the custodial parent and child matched. Results, which suggest that gender bias may exist in laypersons' perceptions of child neglect and may influence their decisions to report, have implications for identification of and intervention for vulnerable children and families.

Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: the Effect of Truncated Testimony on Juror Decision-making

In countries that allow child complainants of abuse to present their direct evidence via pre-recorded videotape, the recording is sometimes truncated for relevance or admissibility purposes before it is presented to the jury. In two experiments, we investigated how this practice affects mock jurors' judgments of child credibility and defendant culpability when truncation omitted the child's less plausible allegations. Mock jurors read a transcript of a 6-year-old girl making an abuse allegation against the janitor at her school. Some jurors read this allegation only (truncated version), while others also read either one or two additional - but less plausible - allegations by the same child. Contrary to what we predicted, the presence of these additional allegations did not decrease jurors' belief in the core allegation, nor did it influence their judgments about the child complainant's honesty or cognitive competence. In fact, under at least one condition, reading additional, less plausible allegations made jurors more likely to pronounce the defendant guilty of the core allegation - even when jurors did not believe the additional allegations. This finding stands in stark contrast to prior research on jurors' evaluation of adults' testimony that includes implausible details. Future research in this area will help to elucidate the conditions under which the presentation of truncated testimony may or may not influence juror decision-making. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Explaining gender differences in jurors' reactions to child sexual assault cases

In three experiments, we investigated the influence of juror, victim, and case factors on mock jurors' decisions in several types of child sexual assault cases (incest, day care, stranger abduction, and teacher-perpetrated abuse). We also validated and tested the ability of several scales measuring empathy for child victims, children's believability, and opposition to adult/child sex, to mediate the effect of jurors' gender on case judgments. Supporting a theoretical model derived from research on the perceived credibility of adult rape victims, women compared to men were more empathic toward child victims, more opposed to adult/child sex, more pro-women, and more inclined to believe children generally. In turn, women (versus men) made more pro-victim judgments in hypothetical abuse cases; that is, attitudes and empathy generally mediated this juror gender effect that is pervasive in this literature. The experiments also revealed that strength of case evidence is a powerful factor in determining judgments, and that teen victims (14 years old) are blamed more for sexual abuse than are younger children (5 years old), but that perceptions of 5 and 10 year olds are largely similar. Our last experiment illustrated that our findings of mediation generalize to a community member sample.

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.

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) x 3 (interview quality: poor, typical, or good) x 2 (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.

The impact of type of out-of-court disclosure in a child sexual assault trial

This study investigated the impact of type of out-of-court disclosure in a child sexual assault case involving a 6-year-old alleged victim. Community participants read a fictional criminal trial summary of a child sexual assault case in which the alleged victim's out-of-court disclosure of the assault was: (a) complete on two occasions or (b) incomplete at first, but later included the full account of the incident. The results showed that there were more guilty verdicts, higher ratings of the defendant's guilt, and greater belief of the alleged victim when there was full disclosure on two occasions compared to when there was a delay in full disclosure. These results are discussed in terms of the impact the nature of out-of-court disclosure can have when a child testifies in a sexual assault case.