CHILDREN’S TESTIMONY

CHILDREN & EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY COURTS IN MANY STATES DO NOT ALLOW CHILDREN UNDER 10 TO TESTIFY IN COURT. WHEN THEY DO, THERE IS A COMPETENCY HEARING BASED ON:

–CAN THE CHILD DISTINGUISH LIES FROM THE TRUTH? –DOES THE CHILD UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF ONE’S DUTY TO TELL THE TRUTH? –DOES THE CHILD UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TELLING THE TRUTH?

EXAGGERATION EXAGGERATION BY CHILDREN WHO REPORT HAVING BEEN ASSAULTED IS BELIEVED TO BE VERY RARE HOWEVER, A STUDY BY THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD PSYCHIATRY FOUND 36% OF THE CHARGES INVOLVING CHILDREN’S TESTIMONY ABOUT SEXUAL ABUSE IN CUSTODY BATTLES WERE LATER PROVED UNTRUE.

MEMORY WHILE CHILDREN OVER AGE 4 DO WELL ON RECOGNITION TESTS AND DO NOT REQUIRE SOPHISTICATED COGNITIVE SKILLS TO REPORT SEXUAL ASSAULT, THE ABILITY OF YOUNG CHILDREN TO REPORT FULLY AND IN A COHERENT FASHION WITHOUT ASSISTANCE IS NOT UP TO ADULT STANDARDS.

SUGGESTIBILITY STUDIES VARY ON THE ABILITY OF CHILDREN TO RESIST THE DISTORTION OF THEIR MEMORY BY ADULT SUGGESTIBILITY SOMETIMES CHILDREN LIE BECAUSE THEY ARE ASKED LEADING QUESTIONS BY ADULTS

–IN ONE STUDY, 75 FIVE TO SIX YEAR OLDS WATCHED A FILM OF A MAN WHO PICKED UP A DOLL AND CLEANED IT. AFTER THE FILM, AN ADULT SAID TO THE CHILDREN HE THOUGHT THE MAN WAS “PLAYING” WITH THE DOLL. SUBSEQUENTLY, 25% SAID THE MAN IN THE FILM WAS PLAYING WITH THE DOLL. BUT WHEN THE ADULT KEPT INSISTING TO THE CHILDREN THAT THE MAN IN THE FILM WAS PLAYING WITH THE DOLL, ALL BUT 2 CHILDREN EVENTUALLY RELENTED AND AGREED THERE WAS “PLAYING” IN THE FILM.

SOMETIMES DOLLS ARE USED DURING QUESTIONING OF CHILDREN (SOMETIMES THEY ARE PLAIN DOLLS WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THEY HAVE REALISTIC GENITALS!) BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT DOLLS ADD ANY VALIDITY TO THE RESPONSES OF THESE CHILDREN

“COACHING” CHILDREN WORKS BEST WHEN THE CHILD KNOWS THE COACH AND IS MOTIVATED TO PLEASE THE COACH. SUGGESTIBILITY IS GREATEST ON MATTERS THAT ARE UNFAMILIAR TO THE CHILDREN; INVOLVE PERIPHERAL DETAIL; AND ARE NOT PERSONALLY MEANINGFUL.

IN OTHER CASES, INACCURATE INFORMATION IS REPORTED WITHOUT PROMPTING. 36 FIVE YEAR OLD GIRLS WERE GIVEN A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION WITHOUT ANY ATTENTION GIVEN TO THE VAGINAL AREA. YET 8 OF THE 36 LATER REPORTED (WHEN ASKED, “WHAT HAPPENED?”) THAT THEIR VAGINAL AREA HAD BEEN EXAMINED.

A WARNING TO CHILDREN AGE 7 AND OLDER THAT QUESTIONS THEY WILL BE ASKED MIGHT BE DIFFICULT OR “TRICKY,” COUPLED WITH AN INSTRUCTION TO ANSWER WITH “ONLY WHAT YOU REMEMBER” IS APPARENTLY EFFECTIVE IN COMBATING THE SUGGESTIBILITY INHERENT IN LEADING QUESTIONS.

TRUTH ISSUES CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS 2 CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN. CHILDREN AGED 6-12 ARE NO MORE PRONE TO CONFUSE FACT AND FANTASY THAN ADULTS

AND THEY CAN RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LIE AND A MISTAKE, BUT THEY OFTEN LABEL MISTAKES AND LIES INCONSISTENTLY (UNRELIABLY) UNTIL ABOUT AGE 10.

JUROR’S PERCEPTIONS LOW PERCEPTION OF CHILDREN’S CREDIBILITY IF THEY ARE BYSTANDERS HIGH PERCEPTION OF CHILDREN’S CREDIBILITY IF THEY ARE VICTIMS (UP TO ABOUT AGE 13 IN SEX ABUSE CASES) FALSE BELIEF THAT A CONFIDENT CHILD IS AN ACCURATE CHILD