Abstract
Child witness interviews frequently comprise the central evidence in child sexual assault prosecutions. The aim of the present study was to explore the association between interview quality, interview inconsistencies raised during cross-examination, and trial outcome, while taking into account the strength of the prosecution case. Sixty-nine interviews of child complainants (56 female; aged 6–18 years) were coded for quality (proportion of open-ended questions, interviewer compliance with best-practice, and evidential categories sought). Corresponding trial transcripts were coded for indicators of case strength including number of victims and corroborating evidence (e.g., DNA, eyewitnesses). Cross-examination transcripts were coded for inconsistencies within the child witness interview or between this interview and another statement by the same complainant. After controlling for number of victims and corroborative evidence, interview quality was not associated with trial outcomes. The strongest predictor of verdict was the number of victims: the greater the number of victims, the more likely the defendant was to be convicted of at least one count. The number of inconsistencies was marginally associated with outcome: the greater the number of inconsistencies, the more likely the defendant was to be acquitted. The findings highlight the importance of examining the trial as a whole when investigating the relationship between the child witness interviews and the legal process. Future studies are necessary to replicate these findings, ideally with interviews ranging in quality on key indicators of best-practice interviewing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benson, M., & Powell, M. B. (2015). Evaluation of a comprehensive interactive training system for investigative interviewers of children. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21, 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000052.
Berman, G. L., Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-jurors' evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499074.
Blackwell, S., & Seymour, F. (2014). Prediction of jury verdicts in child sexual assault trials. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21, 567–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2013.856278.
Bradshaw, T. L., & Marks, A. E. (1990). Beyond a reasonable doubt: Factors that influence the legal disposition of child sexual abuse cases. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128790036002006.
Brennan, M. (1994). The battle for credibility-themes in the cross examination of child victim witnesses. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 7(1), 51–73.
Brook, C. A., Fiannaca, B., Harvey, D., Marcus, P., & McEwan, J. (2016). A comparative look at plea bargaining in Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, and the United States. William & Mary Law Review, 57, 1147–1224.
Brubacher, S. P., Poole, D. A., & Dickinson, J. J. (2015). The use of ground rules in investigative interviews with children: A synthesis and call for research. Developmental Review, 36, 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.01.001.
Burrows, K. S., & Powell, M. B. (2014a). Prosecutors' recommendations for improving child witness statements about sexual abuse. Policing and Society, 24, 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.784305.
Burrows, K. S., & Powell, M. B. (2014b). Prosecutors’ perspectives on using recorded child witness interviews about abuse as evidence-in-chief. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 47, 374–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865814522821.
Burrows, K. S., Powell, M. B., & Anglim, J. (2013). Facilitating child witness interviewers’ understanding of evidential requirements through prosecutor instruction. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 15, 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2013.15.4.316.
Castelli, P., Goodman, G. S., & Ghetti, S. (2005). Effects of interview style and witness age on perceptions of children’s credibility in sexual abuse cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02122.x.
Cross, T. P., de Vos, E., & Whitcomb, D. (1994). Prosecution of child sexual abuse: Which cases are accepted? Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(94)90016-7.
Davies, E., Henderson, E., & Hanna, K. (2010). Facilitating children to give best evidence: Are there better ways to challenge children’s testimony? Criminal Law Journal, 34(6), 347–362.
Davis, G., Hoyano, L., Keenan, C., Maitland, L., & Morgan, R. (1999). An assessment of the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence in child abuse prosecutions. London: Home Office.
Dent, H. R., & Stephenson, G. M. (1979). An experimental study of the effectiveness of different techniques of questioning child witnesses. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1979.tb00302.x.
Eastwood, C. & Patton, W. (2002). The experiences of child complainants of sexual abuse in the criminal justice system. Queensland: Queensland University of Technology. Retrieved from http://crg.aic.gov.au/reports/eastwood.html. Accessed 1 Aug 2018.
Goetzold, S. (2017). An open and shut case of closed questions: An exploration of joint investigative interview training in Scotland. Child Abuse Review, 26, 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2391.
Guadagno, B. L., Powell, M. B., & Wright, R. (2006). Police officers' and legal professionals' perceptions regarding how children are, and should be, questioned about repeated abuse. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 13, 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.13.2.251.
Hanna, K., Davies, E., Crothers, C., & Henderson, E. (2012). Questioning child witnesses in New Zealand's criminal justice system: Is cross-examination fair? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 19, 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2011.615813.
Johnson, J. L., & Shelley, A. E. (2014). Effects of child interview tactics on prospective jurors’ decisions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32, 846–866. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2152.
Krähenbühl, S. (2012). ‘Does the jury really need to hear it all?’: The effect of evidence presentation practice on jury assessment of children's eyewitness testimony. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 847–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.579904.
Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2007). 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021.
Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., & Esplin, P. W. (2008). Tell me what happened: Structured investigative interviews of child victims and witnesses. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
Lewis, T., & Klettke, B. (2012). Medical evidence in child sexual assault cases. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 2, 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1108/20093821211264450.
Mulder, M. R., & Vrij, A. (1996). Explaining conversation rules to children: An intervention study to facilitate children’s accurate responses. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 623–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(96)00050-6.
Myers, J. E. (1987). Child witnesses: Techniques for direct examination, cross-examination, and impeachment. The Pacific Law Journal, 18, 801–942.
Orbach, Y., & Pipe, M.-E. (2011). Investigating substantive issues. In M. E. Lamb, D. J. La Rooy, L. C. Malloy, & C. Katz (Eds.), Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (pp. 147–164). UK: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119998495.ch8.
Pichler, A. S., Powell, M., Sharman, S., Zydervelt, S., Westera, N., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (under review). Child witness interview quality and inconsistencies raised during cross-examination: Is there a connection?
Pipe, M. E., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Abbott, C. E., & Stewart, H. (2013). Do case outcomes change when investigative interviewing practices change? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030312.
Powell, M. B., Fisher, R. P., & Wright, R. (2005). Investigative interviewing. In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 11–42). New York: Guilford.
Powell, M. B., Murfett, R., & Thomson, D. M. (2010). An analysis of police officers' decisions about whether to refer cases of child abuse for prosecution. Psychology, Crime and Law, 16, 715–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160903025828.
Roberts, K. P., Brubacher, S. P., Powell, M. B., & Price, H. L. (2011). Practice narratives. In M. E. Lamb, D. La Rooy, L. Malloy, & C. Katz (Eds.), Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (pp. 129–146). UK: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119998495.ch7.
Snow, P. C., Powell, M. B., & Murfett, R. (2009). Getting the story from child witnesses: Exploring the application of a story grammar framework. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802409347.
Stolzenberg, S. N., & Lyon, T. D. (2014). How attorneys question children about the dynamics of sexual abuse and disclosure in criminal trials. Psychology, Public Police and Law, 20, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035000.
Yi, M., Jo, E., & Lamb, M. E. (2016). Effects of the NICHD protocol training on child investigative interview quality in Korean police officers. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31, 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-015-9170-9.
Zydervelt, S., Zajac, R., Kaladelfos, A., & Westera, N. (2017). Lawyers’ strategies for cross-examining rape complainants: Have we moved beyond the 1950s? British Journal of Criminology, 57, 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azw023.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by funding to the last three authors from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The views and findings expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Royal Commission.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pichler, A.S., Sharman, S.J., Powell, M. et al. Association between Interview Quality and Child Sexual Abuse Trial Outcome. J Fam Viol 35, 395–403 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00051-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00051-5