Expert scientific testimony on child witnesses in the age of Daubert.

Borgida, Eugene

doi:10.1037/10272-009

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A more effective approach, concrete testimony, explicitly maps research results onto case evidence. For example, an attorney can make research findings concrete by proposing a hypothetical scenario that is similar to the case at hand, and then asking the expert to explain the significance of various features in the scenario (Kovera and Borgida 1998; Kovera et al 1997). Together with results from expert testimony studies, our results suggest that concrete examples need to be an integral part of training programs for the professionals who investigate crimes involving child witnesses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adults usually believe young children: The influence of eliciting questions and suggestibility presentations on perceptions of children's disclosures.

Laimon¹,

Poole²

2008

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do people realize the danger of asking misinformed children yes-no questions? Study 1 confirmed that disclosures children made during free recall in an earlier suggestibility study were more accurate than disclosures following "yes" responses to yes-no questions, which in turn were more accurate than disclosures following "no" responses. In Studies 2 and 3, college students watched interviews of children and judged the veracity of these three disclosure patterns. Participants generally believed false reports representing the first two patterns, although watching expert testimony that included a videotaped example of a false report reduced trust in prompted disclosures. Results document the need to inform forensic decision-makers about the circumstances associated with erroneous responses to yes-no questions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adults usually believe young children: The influence of eliciting questions and suggestibility presentations on perceptions of children's disclosures.

Laimon¹,

Poole²

2008

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although Summit (1992) wrote that he did not intend to imply that CSAAS is present in all abused children, or that it should be treated as diagnostic of abuse, many professionals have adopted CSAAS as a template by which to diagnose sexual abuse (Fisher, 1995; Kovera & Borgida, 1998; Robin, 1991; Summit, 1992). Perhaps the best example of this practice is reflected in State v. Michaels (1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse: What Does the Research Tell Us About the Ways That Children Tell?

London¹,

Bruck²,

Ceci³

et al. 2005

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

494

419

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The empirical basis for the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS), a theoretical model that posits that sexually abused children frequently display secrecy, tentative disclosures, and retractions of abuse statements was reviewed. Two data sources were evaluated: retrospective studies of adults' reports of having been abused as children and concurrent or chart-review studies of children undergoing evaluation or treatment for sexual abuse. The evidence indicates that the majority of abused children do not reveal abuse during childhood. However, the evidence fails to support the notion that denials, tentative disclosures, and recantations characterize the disclosure patterns of children with validated histories of sexual abuse. These results are discussed in terms of their implications governing the admissibility of expert testimony on CSAAS. Although it is widely acknowledged that the sexual assault of children is a major societal concern, it is not known how many children are victims of sexual abuse in the United States (Ceci & Friedman, 2000). There are two major reasons for this lack of data. First, present estimates of the incidence of child sexual abuse (CSA) are primarily based on reports received and validated by child protection agencies. These figures, however, do not reflect the number of unreported cases or the number of cases reported to other types of agencies (e.g., sheriff's offices) and professionals (e.g., mental health diversion programs). Second, the accuracy of diagnosis of CSA is often difficult because definitive medical or physical evidence is lacking or inconclusive in the vast majority of cases (Bays & Chadwick, 1993; Berenson, Heger, & Andrews, 1991), and because there are no gold standard psychological symptoms specific to sexual abuse (Kendall-Tacket,

show abstract

“…A handful of studies have examined potential jurors’ beliefs regarding how typical it is for children to delay disclosing CSA. Overall, these surveys reveal most adults recognize that sexually abused children often delay reporting or may altogether fail to come forward (Gray, 1993; Kovera & Borgida, 1998; Morison & Greene, 1992). In a survey of 317 college student and jury pool participants, 84% indicated children may not disclose right away (Quas et al, 2005).…”

Section: Surveys Of Mock Jurors’ Knowledge About Delayed Disclosurementioning

confidence: 99%

Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Investigating the Role of Delayed Disclosure and Relationship to the Perpetrator

Miller

Call

London

2022

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Child sexual abuse (CSA) claims brought forward weeks, months, or years after the alleged events are commonplace, yet the trial-level ramifications of delayed disclosure remain unclear. In the present study, we investigated the influence of length of delayed disclosure (1 day, 1 month, 10 months) as a function of the victim-perpetrator relationship (next-door neighbor, stepfather) on mock jurors’ perceptions of a CSA case. Jury-eligible participants (N = 328) read a mock trial summary describing an alleged incident of CSA between an adult male defendant and a seven-year-old female victim. Participants then rendered various case judgments. When length of delay was 10 months versus 1 day, mock jurors rendered fewer guilty verdicts and lower ratings of victim trustworthiness, believability, memory strength, and memory accuracy. Effects of length of delay varied as a function of the victim-perpetrator relationship, but only when the perpetrator was the victim’s next-door neighbor versus stepfather. When the perpetrator was the victim’s next-door neighbor, participants rated the likelihood of abuse as higher and the victim’s memory as stronger with shorter versus longer lengths of delay. Delay did not vary as a function of the victim-perpetrator relationship when the perpetrator was the victim’s stepfather. Findings have implications for trial-level safeguards (e.g., expert testimony) in CSA cases involving delayed disclosure.

show abstract

Expert scientific testimony on child witnesses in the age of Daubert.

Cited by 9 publications

References 58 publications

Adults usually believe young children: The influence of eliciting questions and suggestibility presentations on perceptions of children's disclosures.

Adults usually believe young children: The influence of eliciting questions and suggestibility presentations on perceptions of children's disclosures.

Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse: What Does the Research Tell Us About the Ways That Children Tell?

Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Investigating the Role of Delayed Disclosure and Relationship to the Perpetrator

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About