Evidence Summarized in Attorneys' Closing Arguments Predicts Acquittals in Criminal Trials of Child Sexual Abuse

Describing Coercion in the Courtroom: The Influence of Language and Maltreatment Severity on Jurors' Perceptions of Child Witnesses

Regardless of compliance to coercion by an alleged perpetrator, child maltreatment is abuse in any form. However, the extent to which coercion is described as an obligation (mandatory compliance) or permission (optional compliance) is legally relevant. The present investigation examined how attorneys question children about coercion and how children describe coercion in courtroom investigations of alleged child sexual abuse, and whether such language influences jurors' perceptions of children's testimony. Study 1 assessed 64 transcripts of children's testimonies and revealed that both attorneys and children use coercive language. Problematically, terms of permission were used when describing sexual abuse, potentially implying compliance was optional. Study 2 presented 160 adults with transcript excerpts, varied by coercive language (obligation or permission) and maltreatment type (sexual abuse or punishment). Coercive language influenced perceptions of coercion and whether the adult was to blame. Maltreatment type influenced perceptions of severity, credibility, and verdict. Overall, coercive language and maltreatment type influence perceptions of how the event unfolded.

Appellate Review of Child Sexual Abuse Convictions: The Importance of Character Evidence

This study examined the role of character evidence and other issues in criminal appeals of child sexual abuse (CSA) convictions. Character evidence includes uncharged acts and character witnesses who testify to another's reputation or opinion and is offered to prove an individual's propensities. Examining 168 appellate court opinions reviewing CSA convictions between 2005 and 2015 in Maricopa County, Arizona, we found that when specific types of evidence were at issue, they were most often character evidence issues (49%). However, appellate courts virtually never reversed convictions (n = 5), and when defendants did obtain relief, the reduction in charges or in sentences was minor. Of the small number of opinions that were published (n = 4), all focused on character evidence, including the single case reviewed by the Arizona Supreme Court. However, close examination of the published cases suggested they effected only modest change.

The Impact of the Consistency of Child Witness and Peer Reports on Credibility

Adults' perceptions of children's disclosures have important implications for the response to that disclosure. Children who experience adult transgressions, such as maltreatment, often choose to disclose this experience to a peer. Thus, peer disclosure recipients may transmit this disclosure to an adult or provide support for the child's own disclosure. Despite this, the influence of peer disclosure on a child witness's credibility, as well as on the perceptions of peer disclosure recipients, is unknown. The present study examined how child witnesses' and peer disclosure recipients' credibility is impacted when the peer either confirms or contradicts the witness's disclosure (or concealment) of an adult transgression. Participants listened to a child witness and peer being interviewed by an adult in one of four disclosure patterns (consistent disclose, consistent conceal, witness disclose/peer conceal, or witness conceal/peer disclose). Participants rated both the witness and the peer on dimensions of credibility (honesty and cognitive competence). Results revealed that both the witness and peer were more credible when their reports were consistent with one another. When inconsistent, the witness/peer who disclosed was considered more credible than the one who concealed. The findings indicate the potential importance of peers in the disclosure process as they may support the witness's report and even be a credible discloser when the witness is reluctant to disclose.

Myths and Misunderstandings About Child Sexual Abuse in Criminal Investigations

Researchers have established that rape myths shape perceptions of victims and perpetrators in criminal cases. Researchers have devoted less attention to exploring the impact of child sexual abuse (CSA) myths in court. While we know that jurors believe myths and misconceptions about the nature of CSA, no work has explored how these myths appear during the prosecution of CSA cases. The purpose of the present investigation was to assess how defense attorneys apply myths more specific to CSA in the questioning of children testifying about alleged CSA. The present study compliments and expands upon a previous study by St. George and colleagues (2021a), where authors examined the use of rape myths in the questioning of children making allegations of CSA. In the current study, we examined testimonies of 122 children testifying in criminal cases of alleged CSA in the United States. We qualitatively coded 6,384 lines of questioning for references to CSA-focused myths related to the disclosure process, witnesses and privacy issues, assumptions of harm, and the child's positive relationship with the perpetrator. These myths were common, occurring in over 10% of defense attorneys' lines of questioning. Disclosure issues were the most frequent, followed by witness and privacy issues, assumptions of harm, and the child's positive relationship with their perpetrator. In many cases, attorneys employed different strategies across child's age to highlight these myths. These findings compliment those of prior work suggesting that CSA myths, much like rape myths, are appearing with regularity. Defense attorneys are likely capitalizing on jurors' misconceptions to undermine children's believability.

Exploration of factors influencing court outcomes in cases involving minors as victims in Ghana

BACKGROUND

The factors that influence positive court outcomes for cases of child sexual abuse (CSA) have been studied in other contexts but very few such studies exist for Sub-Saharan countries. Knowledge of how such cases fare in these court systems is, however, important for a global assessment of such outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The study explored the predictive effect of the victim, complainant; offender and offence characteristics, and length of the trial on case disposition and dropout.

METHODS, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Three hundred and eighty-nine (389) closed court files related to child sexual abuse in Ghana were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

The findings show that the number of court sittings (length of trial) and complainant characteristics predict negative outcomes for CSA cases in Ghana. Specifically, convictions were less likely to occur where caregivers were the complainants (OR = 0.45), and when there were longer court sittings (OR = 0.95). Victim, offender, and offence characteristics, however, did not influence case outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is one of the first studies using actual court data to predict the outcome of cases in CSA in Ghana, and makes recommendations for the support of children and caregivers through the court process.

Blaming Children: How Rape Myths Manifest in Defense Attorneys' Questions to Children Testifying About Child Sexual Abuse

Since rape myths were codified in 1980 (Burt, 1980), scholars have shown that individuals who endorse rape myths perceive victims as less credible and more responsible for rape and perpetrators as less responsible. Studies also show that rape myths hinder successful adjudication of rape cases by influencing juries' assessments of perpetrator guilt (Dinos et al., 2015). While most of this research focuses on sexual assaults involving adult victims, some scholars have found that victims as young as 12 are blamed for rape. If rape myths influence the perceptions of sex offenses even when victims are children, then defense attorneys in child sexual abuse (CSA) cases may be motivated to highlight rape myth in CSA trials. In the current study, we conducted a content analysis of the cross-examinations of 122 children, aged 6 to 17, alleging CSA to determine if and how defense attorneys question children about rape myths. We looked for questions about force and resistance, motives to lie, victim precipitation, and character issues (e.g., habitual drug use). We found that defense attorneys commonly referenced rape myths in CSA trials. A total of 10% of all defense attorneys' lines of questioning referenced a rape myth, and attorneys asked 77% of children at least one rape myth line of questioning. Whether or not attorneys asked about different myths and the content of these questions varied by children's age. Our findings indicate that defense attorneys use rape myths strategically to undermine children's credibility in CSA trials, but they adapt (adult) rape myths in ways that are plausible in the CSA context. Policies formed to prevent the prejudicial impact of rape myths at sexual assault trials involving adults (e.g., rape shield laws) may not adequately prevent their impact in CSA trials. Prosecutors, therefore, should address rape myths at CSA trials.

"This Incident Happened When There Were 10 People in the House?" Exploring a Framework to Categorize Defense Attorneys' Plausibility Questioning in CSA Trials

While researchers find that attorneys in CSA trials dedicate substantial time to questioning children about the plausibility of their reports, we know of no study to date that has assessed the types of plausibility issues attorneys raise, the relative frequency of different types, or if attorneys vary their plausibility questioning depending on case characteristics. In the current study we explored these questions. Guided by the story model of jury decision-making, we proposed defense attorneys would raise plausibility issues by 1) highlighting jurors' misconceptions about CSA dynamics; 2) highlighting confusing or implausible statements made by the child; and 3) offering alternative explanations for events. We conducted a content analysis of the cross-examinations of 134 children aged 5-17 testifying about alleged CSA. We found that attorneys raised all three proposed types of plausibility questioning, and they varied their plausibility questioning somewhat by age, severity, child-defendant relationship, and the number of victims in the case. Attorneys' preferred strategy was to highlight jurors' misconceptions about CSA. Prosecutors should address jurors' misconceptions preemptively in direct examinations of children or through expert testimony. Beyond implications for courtroom practices, our plausibility framework may apply to plausibility concerns raised in other crime types, something researchers should explore.

The effects of evidence-based expert testimony on perceptions of child sexual abuse involving recantation

Child sexual abuse (CSA) cases involving recantation invoke concerns about children’s reliability. Expert testimony can help explain the complexities of these cases. Experts have historically relied on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), yet this is not science-based. In a CSA case involving recantation, how would evidence-based testimony affect perceptions of child credibility when compared to CSAAS? Across 2 studies, we test the effects of expert testimony based on evidence-based science, nonscientific evidence, and experience-based evidence on outcomes in CSA cases involving recantation. Evidence-based testimony led to higher perceptions of credibility and scientific rigor of the evidence when compared to CSAAS testimony. Evidence-based testimony also led to more guilty verdicts when compared to the control. In sum, jurors had some ability to detect evidence strength, such that evidence-based expert testimony was superior to CSAAS testimony in many respects, and consistently superior to experience-based testimony in these cases.

The Relevance of Certain Case Characteristics in the Successful Prosecution of Child Sexual Abuse Cases in Indonesia

Successful prosecution in child sexual abuse (CSA) cases is an essential purpose of law enforcement agencies to ensure accountability of perpetrators and children's safety. However, research has shown that legal prosecution of CSA cases is a highly complex endeavor resulting in only a limited percentage of cases being prosecuted and ultimately proven in court. Most attrition occurs at the stage of the police investigation. The current study is the first study of CSA prosecution in an Asian country. We aimed to identify factors, which contribute to Indonesian CSA cases prosecution. We examined police files of CSA cases (N = 179) from three police units in greater Jakarta. We found that only 32% (n = 58) of cases were prosecuted. The following factors increased the odds of prosecution: victim being threatened, the suspect confessed, medical examination report being present, duration of investigations between one to 2 months, and the case being charged under the Child Protection Law. These findings (threat, suspect confession, and the presence of a medical examination report) correspond to previous studies in other jurisdictions.

"DID YOU EVER FIGHT BACK?": Jurors' Questions to Children Testifying in Criminal Trials About Alleged Sexual Abuse

The current study examined jurors' questions to children in criminal trials assessing children's allegations of sexual abuse, demonstrating a new avenue for studying how jurors think about, respond to, and assess evidence. We used qualitative content analysis to examine jurors' questions to 134, 5- to 17-year-olds alleging sexual abuse in criminal trial testimonies. Five themes emerged: abuse interactions, contextual details of abuse, children's reactions to abuse, children's (delayed) disclosure, and case background details. Jurors often ask about abuse dynamics, the context surrounding abuse, and children's disclosure processes, reflecting common misconceptions about child sexual abuse (CSA), such as whether it is credible to delay disclosure or maintain contact with an alleged perpetrator. This study improves our understanding of how jurors understand and evaluate children's reports of alleged CSA, suggesting that jurors may struggle to understand children's reluctance.

Alibi believability: Corroborative evidence and contextual factors

A disbelief in alibis is one contributor to wrongful convictions. One reason that triers-of-fact may disbelieve alibis is that they lack evidence to corroborate the whereabouts of the suspect at the time of the crime. Contextual factors, such as when the alibi was disclosed and what was the nature of the crime, can also affect alibi believability. This paper outlines two studies where mock jurors evaluated an investigation and trial description online and rated alibi believability, defendant character trait ratings, and verdicts. Both studies examined the impact of corroborative alibi evidence and the timing of the alibi disclosure. In addition, Study 1 included the type of crime and Study 2 included the number of alibi corroborators as additional independent variables. We hypothesized that alibis would be viewed more positively when they were disclosed earlier rather than later, were corroborated by strong physical evidence and multiple corroborators, and involved less violent offenses. As hypothesized, in both studies, alibis with strong physical evidence were thought to be more believable than those with no physical evidence but the number of corroborators and type of crime did not affect any dependent measures. Delayed timing had some negative effects on views of the defendant's character. Corroborative physical evidence affected alibi believability consistently, and contextual factors mattered less. Both implications and suggestions for future research are further discussed.

Differential effects of direct and cross examination on mock jurors' perceptions and memory in cases of child sexual abuse

When children testify in cases of child sexual abuse (CSA), they often provide minimal responses to attorneys' questions. Thus, how attorneys ask questions may be particularly influential in shaping jurors' perceptions and memory for case details. This study examined mock jurors' perceptions after reading an excerpt of a CSA trial transcript. Participants' memory of the excerpt was tested after a two-day delay. We examined how reading a direct or cross-examination excerpt that included either high or low temporal structure impacted participants' perceptions, verdict decisions and memory reports. We found that participants who read a direct examination excerpt rated the child witness as more credible, were more likely to convict the defendant and had more accurate memory reports than those who read a cross-examination excerpt, regardless of temporal structure. Suggestions for improving jurors' comprehension and recall of child statements presented as evidence in CSA cases are discussed.

Assessing Children's Credibility in Courtroom Investigations of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse: Suggestibility, Plausibility, and Consistency

As children's testimonies of child sexual abuse (CSA) often lack concrete evidence to corroborate a child's claims, attorneys devote a substantial amount of time to establishing a child as credible during the course of a trial. Examining 134 CSA victim testimonies for children aged 5-17 (M = 12.48, SD = 3.34; 90% female), we explored how attorneys assess child credibility through specifically targeting children's suggestibility/honesty, plausibility, and consistency. Results revealed that while prosecutors examine plausibility more often to establish credibility, defense attorneys focus their assessments on suggestibility/honesty and potential inconsistency. However, both attorneys asked many more questions about children's consistency than any other area of potential credibility. Furthermore, while prosecutors ask proportionally more credibility-challenging questions of older children, the defense do not. These results suggest that prosecutors may be missing an opportunity to establish children as honest and consistent and elucidate a need to train attorneys on the implications of children's inconsistencies, suggestibility, and plausible abuse dynamics.

Relations between Attorney Temporal Structure and Children's Response Productivity in Cases of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse

PURPOSE

Previous research has demonstrated that attorney question format relates to child witness' response productivity. However, little work has examined the relations between the extent to which attorneys provide temporal structure in their questions, and the effects of this structure on children's responding. The purpose of the present study was to address this gap in the literature in order to identify methods by which attorneys increase children's response productivity on the stand without risking objections from opposing counsel for "calling for narrative answers".

METHODS

In the present study we coded criminal court transcripts involving child witnesses (5-18 years) for narrative structure in attorney questions and productivity in children's responses. Half of the transcripts resulted in convictions, half in acquittals, balanced across key variables: child age, allegation severity, the child's relationship to the perpetrator, and the number of allegations.

RESULTS

Prosecutors and defense attorneys varied substantially in their questioning tactics. Prosecutors used more temporal structure in their questions and varied their questioning by the age of the child. These variations had implications for children's response productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that temporal structure is a novel and viable method for enhancing children's production of case-relevant details on the witness stand.

Ask versus tell: Potential confusion when child witnesses are questioned about conversations

Children's potential confusion between "ask" and "tell" can lead to misunderstandings when child witnesses are asked to report prior conversations. The verbs distinguish both between interrogating and informing, and between requesting and commanding. Children's understanding was examined using both field (Study 1) and laboratory methods (Studies 2-4). Study 1 examined 100 5- to 12-year-olds' trial testimony in child sexual abuse cases, and found that potentially ambiguous use of ask and tell was common, typically found in yes-no questions that elicited unelaborated answers, and virtually never clarified by attorneys or child witnesses. Studies 2 to 4 examined 345 maltreated 6- to 11-year-olds' understanding of ask and tell. The results suggest that children initially comprehend telling as saying, and thus believed that asking is a form of telling. As such, they often endorsed asking as telling when asked yes-no questions, but distinguished between asking and telling when explicitly asked to choose. Their performance was impaired by movement between different use of the words. Child witnesses' characterization of their conversations can easily be misconstrued by the way in which they are questioned, leading questioners to misinterpret whether they were coached by disclosure recipients or coerced by abuse suspects. (PsycINFO Database Record

Challenging the Credibility of Alleged Victims of Child Sexual Abuse in Scottish Courts

This study examined the effects of credibility-challenging questions (n = 2,729) on 62 5- to 17-year-olds' testimony in child sexual abuse cases in Scotland by categorizing the type, source, and content of the credibility-challenging questions defense lawyers asked and assessing how children responded. Credibility-challenging questions comprised 14.9% of all questions asked during cross-examination. Of defense lawyers' credibility-challenging questions, 77.8% focused generally on children's honesty, whereas the remainder referred to specific inconsistencies in the children's testimony. Children resisted credibility challenges 54% of the time, significantly more often than they provided compliant responses (26.8%). The tendency to resist was significantly lower for questions focused on specific rather than general inconsistencies, and peripheral rather than central content. Overall, children resisted credibility challenges more often when the aim and content of the question could be understood easily. As this was a field study, the accuracy of children's responses could not be assessed. The findings suggest that credibility-challenging questions that place unrealistic demands on children's memory capacities (e.g., questions focused on peripheral content or highly specific details) occur frequently, and that juries should be made aware of the disproportionate effects of such questioning on the consistency of children's testimony.