Expert testimony regarding child witnesses: Does it sensitize jurors to forensic interview quality?

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 152-164

  Buck, Julie A ^c   London, Kamala ^a   Wright, Daniel B ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO   (United States)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

Child abuse; Child witness; Expert testimony; Interviewing; Memory; Suggestibility

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHILD; CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEGAL ASPECT; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; RECALL; SUGGESTION; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; CHILD; CHILD ABUSE, SEXUAL; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTERVIEW, PSYCHOLOGICAL; JUDGMENT; MENTAL RECALL; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; SUGGESTION; TRUTH DISCLOSURE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79960659910     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-010-9228-2     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
2. Barlow v. State, 270 Ga. 54 (1998).
3. Bartholomew, D. J., & Knott, M. (1999). Latent variable models and factor analysis (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
4. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91. doi: 10.1023/A: 1022326807441. (Pubitemid 29138300)
5. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Francoeur, E. (2000). Children's use of anatomically detailed dolls to report genital touching in a medical examination: Developmental and gender comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 74-83. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.6.1.74.
6. Buck, J. A., Warren, A. R., & Brigham, J. C. (2004). When does quality count?: Perceptions of hearsay testimony about child sexual abuse interviews. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 599-622. doi:10.1007/s10979-004-0486-8. (Pubitemid 41271287)
7. Ceci, S. J., & Friedman, R. D. (2000). The suggestibility of children: Scientific findings and legal implication. Cornell Law Review, 86(1), 33-108.
8. Corder, B. F., & Whiteside, R. (1988). A survey of jurors' perception of issues related to child abuse. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 6(3), 37-43.
9. Crowley, M. J., O'Callaghan, M. G., & Ball, P. J. (1994). The juridical impact of psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 89-105. doi: 10.1007/BF01499146. (Pubitemid 24081971)
10. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 7, 215-225. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370070206.
11. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
12. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Federal Rules of Evidence (2001). St. Paul, MN: Thomson West.
14. Frazier, P., & Borgida, P. (1988). Juror common understanding and the admissibility of rape trauma syndrome evidence in court. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 101-122. doi:10.1007/BF01073120.
15. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (1923).
16. Gabora, N. J., Spanos, N. P., & Joab, A. (1993). The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 103-119. doi:10.1007/BF01044540. (Pubitemid 23091101)
17. Garven, S., Wood, J. M., Malpass, R. S., & Shaw, J. S. (1998). More than suggestion: The effect of interviewing techniques from the McMartin Preschool case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 347-359. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.83.3.347. (Pubitemid 128377755)
18. Groscup, J., Penrod, S., Studebaker, C., Huss, M., & O'Neil, K. (2002). The effects of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 8, 339-372. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.8.4.339. (Pubitemid 44757813)
19. Home Office in conjunction with the Department of Health. (1992). Memorandum of good practice on video recorded interviews with child witnesses for criminal proceedings. London.
20. Kovera, M. B., & Borgida, E. (1997). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse trials: The admissibility of psychological science. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, S105-S129. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199712)11:73.0.CO;2-#. (Pubitemid 127582957)
21. Kovera, M. B., Borgida, E., Gresham, A. W., Swim, J., & Gray, E. (1993). Do child sexual abuse experts hold pro-child beliefs? A survey of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6, 383-404. doi:10.1002/jts. 2490060308. (Pubitemid 24211005)
22. Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Grey, E., & Regan, P. C. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178-191. doi:10.1037/0021-9010. 82.1.178.
23. Kovera, M. B., Levy, R. J., Borgida, E., & Penrod, S. D. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 653-674. doi:10.1007/ BF01499330.
24. Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D., & Hebert, K. S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.84.3.362.
25. Krauss, D. A., & Sales, B. D. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 7, 267-310. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.7.2. 267.
26. Laimon, R. L., & Poole, D. A. (2008). Adults usually believe young children: The influence of eliciting questions and suggestibility presentations on perceptions of children's disclosures. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 489-501. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9127-y.
27. Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., & Esplin, P. W. (2008). Tell me what happened: Structured investigative interviews of child victims and witnesses. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
28. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2007a). A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 1201-1231. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021. (Pubitemid 350122741)
29. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Warren, A., Esplin, P. W., & Hershkowitz, I. (2007b). Enhancing performance: Factors affecting the informativeness of young witnesses. In M. P. Toglia, D. Read, D. F. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology. Vol 1: Memory for events (pp. 423-446). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30. Leippe, M. R. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 909-959. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.1.4.909.
31. Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D., Rauch, S. M., & Seib, H. (2004). Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 524-541. doi:10.1037/0021-9010. 89.3.524. (Pubitemid 38782942)
32. Levett, L. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2008). The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 363-374. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9113-9. (Pubitemid 351977647)
33. Levy, R. J. (1989). Using 'scientific' testimony to prove child sexual abuse: The Dorsey & Witney professorship lecture. Family Law Quarterly, 23, 383-409.
34. London, K., & Kulkofsky, S. (2009). Factors affecting the reliability of children's reports. In G. M. Davies & D. B. Wright (Eds.), New frontiers in applied memory (pp. 119-141). Psychology Press.
35. Lyon, T. D. (1999). The new wave of suggestibility research: A critique. Cornell Law Review, 84(4), 1004-1087.
36. Lyon, T. D. (2002). Expert testimony on the suggestibility of children: Does it fit? In B. L. Bottoms, M. Bull Kovera, & B. D. McAuliff (Eds.), Children, social science, and the law (pp. 378- 411). New York: Cambridge University Press.
37. McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2007). Estimating the effects of misleading information on witness accuracy: Can experts tell jurors something they don't already know? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 849-870. doi:10.1002/acp.1301. (Pubitemid 350167932)
38. Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (1988). Social science research in law: A new paradigm. American Psychologist, 43, 465-472. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.43.6. 465.
39. Morison, S., & Greene, E. (1992). Juror and expert knowledge of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 595-613. doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(92) 90075-3.
40. Nightingale, N. N. (1993). Juror reactions to child victim witnesses: Factors affecting trial outcome. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 679-694. doi:10.1007/BF01044689. (Pubitemid 23360474)
41. Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I.,Lamb,M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz,D. (2000). Assessing the value of structured protocols for forensic interviews of alleged child abuse victims. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 733-752. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(00) 00137-X. (Pubitemid 30259304)
42. People v. Timothy Johnston, 273 A.D.2d 514 (3rd Dept 2000).
43. Poole, D. A., & Lamb, M. E. (1998). Investigative interviews of children. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.
44. Poole, D. A., & White, L. T. (1991). Effects of question repetition on the eyewitness testimony of children and adults. Developmental Psychology, 27, 975-986. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.27.6.975.
45. Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., & Redlich, A. (2000). Questioning the child witness: What can we conclude from the research thus far? Trauma, Abuse and Violence, 1, 223-249. doi: 10.1177/1524838000001003002.
46. Quas, J. A., Thompson, W. C., & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2005). Do jurors "know" what isn't so about child witnesses? Law and Human Behavior, 29, 425-456. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-5523-8. (Pubitemid 44257266)
47. Rizopoulos, D. (2006). ltm: An R package for latent variable modeling and item response theory analyses. Journal of Statistical Software, 17(5), 1-25.
48. Ross, D. F., Dunning, D., Toglia, M. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1989). Age stereotypes, communication modality, and mock jurors' perceptions of the child witness. In S. J. Ceci, D. F. Ross, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Perspectives on children's testimony (pp. 37-56). New York: Springer-Verlag.
49. Ross, D. F., Jurden, F. H., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Keeney, J. M. (2003). Replications and limitations of a two-factor model of child witness credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 418-431. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01903.x.
50. Schreiber, N., Bellah, L. D., Martinez, Y., McLaurin, K. A., Strok, R., Garven, S., Wood, J. M. (2006). Suggestive interviewing in the McMartin Preschool and Kelly Michaels daycare abuse cases: A case study. Social Influence, 1, 16-47. doi:10.1080/1553451 0500361739.
51. State of Michigan Governor's, 1998/2004 State of Michigan Governor's Task Force on Children's Justice and Family Independence Agency. (1998/2004). Forensic interviewing protocol. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/ documents/FIA-Pub779-13054-7.pdf.
52. State of Ohio v. Gersin, 76 Ohio St.3d 491 (1996).
53. State v. Sloan, 912 S.W.2d 592 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
54. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Mitchell, S. (2001). Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances young children's responses to free-recall prompts in the course of forensic interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 997-1005. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.997. (Pubitemid 33582425)
55. Underwager, R., & Wakefield, H. (1992). Poor psychology produces poor law. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 233-243. doi:10.1007/BF01044800.
56. U.S. v. Zanine (2007).
57. Walker, L., & Monahan, J. (1987). Social frameworks: A new use of social science in law. Virginia Law Review, 73(3), 559-598.
58. Warren, A., Buck, J. A. R., Harris, R. L., Henley, A. K., Bruck, M., & Kuehnle, K. (2007, March). Knowledge of proper child sexual abuse interview techniques: The need for professional education and expert testimony. In B. D. McAuliff & D. Ravanshenas (Eds.), Giving away developmental psychology in court: Can expert testimony on suggestibility and child abuse improve jurors' decisions? Symposium conducted at the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Meeting, Boston, MA.
59. Warren, A. R., Woodall, C. E., Hunt, J. S., & Perry, N. W. (1996). "It sounds good in theory, but.": Do investigative interviewers follow guidelines based on memory research? Child Maltreatment, 1, 231-245. doi:10.1177/1077559596001003006. (Pubitemid 126738288)
60. Wright, D. B., Hanoteau, F., Parkinson, C., & Tatham, A. (in press). Perceptions about memory reliability and honesty for children of 3-18 years old. Legal and Criminological Psychology.
61. Wright v. State, 233 Ga. App. 358 (1998).