Enhancing the credibility of complainants in child sexual assault trials: the effect of expert evidence and judicial directions.

This study investigated the knowledge and misconceptions of jury-eligible citizens about children's reliability as witnesses and responses to child sexual assault (CSA), and examined the influence of expert evidence and judicial directions in challenging common misconceptions. Community volunteers (N = 130) read one of five versions of a simulated jury trial, and completed a pre- and post-trial questionnaire to provide measures of their knowledge of children's responses to sexual abuse, perceptions of victim credibility, and verdict. Results revealed that endorsement of CSA misconceptions negatively impacted ratings of complainant credibility and verdicts. Judicial directions provided before the child complainant testified enhanced complainant credibility, which in turn predicted guilty verdicts. Comparisons of the effectiveness of two procedural legal mechanisms to manage juror misconceptions and improve knowledge about CSA provide guidance for future researchers investigating ways to increase fairness in cases of CSA.

[1]  J. Goodman-Delahunty,et al.  A comparison of expert evidence and judicial directions to counter misconceptions in child sexual abuse trials , 2011 .

[2]  J. Goodman-Delahunty,et al.  Uncertainty and Misconceptions About Child Sexual Abuse: Implications for the Criminal Justice System , 2009 .

[3]  A. Cossins.  Children, Sexual Abuse and Suggestibility: What Laypeople Think They Know and What the Literature Tells Us , 2008 .

[4]  N. Taylor.  Juror attitudes and biases in sexual assault cases , 2007 .

[5]  P. Granhag,et al.  Children's live and videotaped testimonies: How presentation mode affects observers' perception, assessment and memory , 2007 .

[6]  Rachel K. Cush,et al.  The Influence of Limiting Instructions on Processing and Judgments of Emotionally Evocative Evidence , 2006 .

[7]  J. Cashmore,et al.  Child sexual assault trials: A survey of juror perceptions , 2006 .

[8]  J. Fitzgerald.  Attrition of Sexual Offences from the New South Wales Criminal Justice System, The , 2006 .

[9]  W. Thompson,et al.  Do Jurors “Know” What Isn’t So About Child Witnesses? , 2005, Law and human behavior.

[10]  Charles Felzen Johnson,et al.  Child sexual abuse , 2004, The Lancet.

[11]  T. Cross,et al.  Prosecution of Child Abuse , 2003, Trauma, violence & abuse.

[12]  Peter J. Ball,et al.  Child-Witness and Defendant Credibility: Child Evidence Presentation Mode and Judicial Instructions1 , 2001 .

[13]  J. Calvert,et al.  Public opinion and knowledge about childhood sexual abuse in a rural community. , 1999, Child abuse & neglect.

[14]  E. Borgida,et al.  Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Trials: The Admissibility of Psychological Science , 1997 .

[15]  E. Borgida,et al.  Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

[16]  J. Brigham,et al.  Jurors' perceptions of child victim-witnesses in a simulated sexual abuse trial , 1996 .

[17]  M. Crowley,et al.  The juridical impact of psychological expert testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial , 1994 .

[18]  N. Spaños,et al.  The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial , 1993 .

[19]  E. Greene,et al.  Juror and expert knowledge of child sexual abuse. , 1992, Child abuse & neglect.

[20]  Eugene Borgida,et al.  Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. , 1988 .

[21]  L. Wrightsman,et al.  On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. , 1979 .