Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

but at the same time, these drawings may also increase

inaccuracies in children’s testimony.

In summary, research has shown that props and draw-

ings can, under certain circumstances, facilitate memory

accuracy in children older than 5 years, whereas they may

add error to the reports of younger children. Although

there is currently no “gold standard” method of interview-

ing children, different combinations of free-recall, spe-

cific, and prop-assisted questions are being researched to

determine which of them facilitates the most accurate and

complete memory reports from children.

PPhhoottoo LLiinneeuuppss

When interviewed in forensic situations, children

may be presented with photographic lineups to identify

culprits. A lineup may include a criminal (target-

present lineup) or only innocent individuals (target-

absent lineup). When they are shown a target-present

lineup, preschool-age children are less likely than

adults to make correct identifications, although children

around age 5 and above are typically comparable with

adults in making correct identifications. Shown a

target-absent lineup, however, even early adolescents

are inferior to adults, making fewer correct rejections

and more false identifications. As with leading ques-

tions, the photo lineup may entice children to guess.

Witnesses are usually shown a simultaneous lineup,

in which all lineup members are presented at once and

only one decision is made. This method has been crit-

icized for encouraging a relative judgment, whereby

witnesses compare all lineup members and choose the

member who looks most like the criminal relative to

other members. Although this strategy is successful in

target-present lineups, it may lead to errors in target-

absent lineups. Fortunately, fairly simple training

techniques can reduce guessing on target-absent line-

ups in older children.

An alternative procedure is the sequential lineup, in

which witnesses are shown photographs one at a time

and make a decision for each photograph. Compared

with simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups reduce

adults’ false identifications by increasing correct

rejections of target-absent lineups while having a min-

imal effect on correct identifications from target-

present lineups. When they are shown a sequential

lineup, witnesses might make an absolute judgment

for each photograph by comparing the photograph

with their recollection of the criminal. However, target-

absent errors by children are not reduced in sequential

compared with simultaneous procedures.

Children in the Courtroom

As a result of involvement with legal authorities,

children may experience social and emotional distress.

Although repeated interviewing of children can keep

accurate memories alive, child victims report that

being interviewed multiple times by legal authorities is

stressful for them. Speaking about traumatic experi-

ences (particularly in open court), lack of parental sup-

port, harsh cross-examination, facing the defendant,

and not being believed add to children’s distress and

may reduce significantly the amount of information

provided by child witnesses. Moreover, in child sexual

abuse cases, a child’s initial disclosure of the abuse to

a parent, teacher, or other trusted adult may include a

more detailed account than the testimony that the child

gives in court months or even years later. Although tes-

tifying may be helpful for some children, it causes oth-

ers to recover from the criminal and legal experience

more slowly than their nontestifying counterparts.

Child sexual abuse victims who had to testify multiple

times in severe intrafamilial cases tend to have the

most negative long-term emotional effects and are thus

most in need of protection during criminal prosecu-

tions. To remedy these negative consequences, proce-

dural modifications (e.g., testifying via closed-circuit

television) and multidisciplinary investigations, con-

ducted at child advocacy centers and involving teams

of legal professionals (e.g., the police, prosecuting

attorneys, and child protective services workers), who

coordinate their efforts into a single interview of the

child victim/witness, are being developed and tested in

the United States and abroad.

Having an adult (e.g., a mother, social worker, or

police officer) recount children’s out-of-court state-

ments (e.g., hearsay) at trial has recently attracted

research and legal interest. In criminal trials regarding

child sexual abuse, hearsay is often introduced in addi-

tion to the child’s live testimony. Although hearsay is

normally discouraged in the American legal system,

there are special hearsay exceptions, some of which

apply specifically to children’s statements. However, a

recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling suggests that if the

out-of-court statement was made to an authority (e.g.,

a forensic interviewer) and is thus “testimonial,” the

authority cannot testify in place of the child.

Mock jurors find children’s statements more credi-

ble when the child testifies live in court than if the

child is replaced by a hearsay witness. Mock jurors

also find children less credible if they testify via

closed-circuit television instead of face-to-face at

Children’s Testimony——— 81

C-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 81