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

Developmental Considerations in How Defense Attorneys Employ Child Sexual Abuse and Rape Myths When Questioning Alleged Victims of Child Sexual Abuse

Myths and misconceptions surrounding the nature of sexual assault play a role in shaping the perceptions of victims as credible and perpetrators as culpable. Defense attorneys often capitalize on myths in court as an element of their defense strategies. Researchers have established that myths about both rape generally, and child sexual abuse (CSA) specifically, appear with regularity in criminal trials of children who have made an allegation of CSA. Yet no work has systematically and quantitatively examined the impact of a child's age on the probability that attorneys will ask a myth-consistent question in criminal trials of CSA. In the current study, we examine 6,384 lines of questioning across 134 criminal trials of CSA to assess whether defense attorneys employ developmentally sensitive strategies when asking children questions that draw upon myths about sexual violence (CSA myths: disclosure myths, extent of harm, a child's positive relationship with their perpetrator, and the presence of witnesses; Rape myths: force and resistance, motives to lie, victim precipitation, and character issues). We found that attorneys did not vary their use of CSA myths by the age of the child. However, the probability that a child would receive a rape myth-consistent line of questioning, increased with a child's age. This work suggests that attorneys are, at times, strategic in their use of myths and employ these adult rape myths in ways that are plausible, purposeful, and likely impactful. The strategic use of these questions may acknowledge young children's limited development but may place too great a demand on older children's developmental capacities. Prosecutors should be prepared to counterquestion these myths in redirect examination.

Exploring how attorneys address grooming in criminal trials of child sexual abuse

Grooming is a common tactic among perpetrators of child sexual abuse (CSA). It is important that grooming is addressed in court to explain the unintuitive ways a child may act when they have been victims of abuse. The present study draws upon 134 transcripts of CSA criminal trials to establish how attorneys talk about grooming in court. Only 1.8% of attorney's questions addressed grooming behaviors. The majority of these focusing on exposure to pornography (27%) or boundary pushing (19%). Invitations elicited the most productive reports of grooming from children. There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion with which defense and prosecuting attorney's raised grooming issues, with prosecutors raising grooming issues more often than defense attorneys. We suggest that attorneys consider devoting proportionally more time to addressing grooming in court, to help jurors demystify common myths surrounding CSA.

Child Witnesses Productively Respond to "How" Questions About Evaluations but Struggle With Other "How" Questions

Child interviewers are often advised to avoid asking "How" questions, particularly with young children. However, children tend to answer "How" evaluative questions productively (e.g., "How did you feel?"). "How" evaluative questions are phrased as a "How" followed by an auxiliary verb (e.g., "did" or "was"), but so are "How" questions requesting information about method or manner (e.g., "How did he touch you?"), and "How" method/manner questions might be more difficult for children to answer. We examined 458 5- to 17-year-old children questioned about sexual abuse, identified 2485 "How" questions with an auxiliary verb, and classified them as "How" evaluative (n = 886) or "How" method/manner (n = 1599). Across age, children gave more productive answers to "How" evaluative questions than "How" method/manner questions. Although even young children responded appropriately to "How" method/manner questions over 80% of the time, specific types of "How" method/manner questions were particularly difficult, including questions regarding clothing, body positioning, and the nature of touch. Children's difficulties lie in specific combinations of "How" questions and topics, rather than "How" questions in general.

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.

Did Your Mom Help You Remember?: An Examination of Attorneys' Subtle Questioning About Suggestive Influence to Children Testifying About Child Sexual Abuse

Researchers studying children's reports of sexual abuse have focused on how questioners overtly assess coaching and truthfulness (e.g., "Did someone tell you what to say?"). Yet attorneys, and defense attorneys, in particular, may be motivated to ask about suggestive influence and truthfulness in subtle ways, such as with implied meaning (e.g., "Did your mom help you remember?"). Such questions may be particularly challenging for children, who may interpret statements literally, misunderstanding the suggested meaning. The purpose of this study was to examine and categorize how attorneys' ask about suggestive influence and truthfulness. We wanted to learn how attorneys subtly accuse suggestive influence, and how frequently this occurred. We hypothesized that questions indirectly accusing suggestive influence would be common, and that defense attorneys would ask more subtle questions, and fewer overt questions, than prosecutors. We examined 7,103 lines of questioning asked by prosecutors and defense attorneys to 64 children testifying about alleged child sexual abuse. We found that 9% of all attorneys' lines of questioning asked about suggestive influence or truthfulness. The majority (66%) of these were indirect accusations. Indirect accusations of suggestive influence spanned a range of subtleties and topics, including addressing conversational influences (e.g., coaching), incidental influences (e.g., witnessing abuse), and others. We also found defense attorneys were less likely than prosecutors to ask about suggestive influence and truthfulness overtly. We conclude that attorneys commonly ask about suggestive influence and truthfulness in subtle ways that developing children may struggle to understand, and which may result in affirmations of influence, even when allegations are true.

"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.

"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.