Search for: All records

The accuracy of children’s memory, and the way they recall their memories, affects the perceived credibility of their reports. Defense attorneys may be motivated to attack the credibility of children’s reports by suggesting their memory of events is flawed, inaccurate, or influenced, while prosecutors may try to enhance children’s credibility by highlighting the accuracy of their reports. In the current study, we explored if, and how, attorneys address memory concerns in child sexual abuse (CSA) trials. Using a qualitative content analysis of 134 transcripts of children testifying about alleged CSA, we assessed the frequency and content of attorneys' questions about memory. The memory questions we identified suggested a range of attorney motives, including to refresh children’s recollections in court, highlight accuracy of (prior) reports, and imply lying or suggestive influence. We also found differences in the types of memory questions prosecutors and defense attorneys asked, supporting that prosecutors and defense attorneys likely have different motives for asking children about memory. 

ABSTRACT In child sexual abuse (CSA) testimony, attorneys may ask children questions containing pronoun anaphora (e.g., “Where was your Dad?” “What did he do?”heis a pronoun anaphora for referent,Dad). To answer these questions, children must recall the pronoun's referent and appropriate answer to the question. This may be too complex a cognitive task for young children, especially when there are multiple question‐and‐answer (Q–A) turns between the referent and pronoun, leading to misunderstanding. We examined Q–A pairs containing pronouns in 40 CSA testimonies of 5 to 10‐year‐olds. Many attorneys' questions (24%) contained pronouns. Attorneys averaged 4.11 Q–A turns between the referent and pronoun. With each additional Q–A turn, the likelihood of misunderstanding increased. Children's age was also associated with a significant decrease in misunderstanding, meaning older children exhibited fewer misunderstandings. To reduce misunderstanding, those questioning children should clarify the referent quickly when their question contains pronoun anaphora. 

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.