Supporting children in U.S. legal proceedings: Descriptive and attitudinal data from a national survey of victim/witness assistants.

Abstract

We conducted a national survey of 786 victim/witness assistants (VWAs) to provide descriptive and attitudinal information about support person use in U.S. legal proceedings involving children. VWAs (N = 414) from 46 states returned completed surveys (response rate = 53%). Prosecutor-based VWAs or parents/guardians most frequently served as support persons. One support person was almost always or often used with child victims and/or witnesses of all ages. Support persons were extremely common in cases involving child sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect, and adult domestic violence. Overall, support persons provided more informational than emotional support. The most common informational support was to provide referrals to community resources, conduct courtroom visit/orientation, and disseminate relevant procedural information. The most common emotional support was to accompany the child to trial. Support persons rarely or never questioned children directly during investigative interviews or in court. Respondents believed support persons decrease children’s stress and increase accuracy and credibility; however, this effect varied as a function of who provided support, child age, case type, and type of emotional or informational support. Respondents believed that support person presence at trial probably does not prejudice jurors against defendants. These survey data provide a benchmark for legal professionals and a foundation for future social scientific research examining the effects of support person use on children.

Do jurors get what they expect? Traditional versus alternative forms of children's testimony

“…Participants believed that all forms of alternative testimony would be less stressful for children than testifying live in court. This finding is consistent with the views of judges (Hafemeister, 1996), prosecuting attorneys (Goodman et al, 1999), and victim witness assistants (McAuliff et al, in press) regarding the ability of support persons, CCTV, and videotape to reduce children's stress while testifying. These views also are consistent with the results of experimental and quasi-experimental research comparing children's traditional versus prepared (Sas, 1991; 1993), videotaped (Davies et al, 1995), and CCTV testimony (Cashmore, 1992; Davies & Noon, 1988; Goodman et al, 1998; Landström & Granhag, 2010; Murray, 1995).…”

“…Ninety percent of judges responding to another survey believed that allowing a child to testify on an adult's lap effectively minimized the child's trauma compared to 83% and 79% who felt the same about the use of videotape and CCTV, respectively (Hafemeister, 1996). Victim witness assistants share attorneys' and judges' optimism for the ability of support person use to reduce children's stress, particularly when the support person accompanies the child to trial and provides pretrial preparation (McAuliff, Nicholson, Amarilio, & Ravanshenas, in press). Quasi-experimental work on children in actual trials who provided traditional versus prepared (Sas, 1991; 1993), videotaped (Davies et al, 1995), or CCTV testimony (Cashmore, 1992; Davies & Noon, 1988; Murray, 1995) showed that the vast majority of legal professionals believed the innovations effectively reduced children's stress.…”

“…When participants rate fairness directly, they report that the use of videotape (Swim et al, 1993) and CCTV (Lindsay et al, 1995) is fair to the defendant. Victim witness assistants reported that the presence of a support person at trial probably does not prejudice jurors against a defendant (McAuliff et al, in press). Other studies have measured fairness more indirectly by examining whether verdicts or perceptions of either party differ simply as a function of testimony format.…”

“…Our descriptions reflect what we considered to be prototypical examples of the different testimony formats and they may vary in some ways from those used in actual cases. For example, our support person condition described the support person sitting next to the child on the stand, but a recent national survey found that this occurs only rarely or sometimes (McAuliff et al, in press). We do not know whether participants' expectancies and beliefs in our study generalize beyond the testimony conditions they read.…”

Advances in Psychology and Law

“…With older children, support persons may continue to help children regulate their emotions, but may do so by teaching children problem-solving and other coping strategies rather than by directly engaging in regulation of the children's emotions. Support person use is becoming increasingly common in legal settings (Goodman et al, 1999 ;Hafemeister, 1996 ;McAuliff, Nicholson, Amarilio, & Ravanshenas, 2013 ), especially in criminal cases. In the USA, for example, both federal and state statutes allow for the appointment of support persons for child witnesses in criminal proceedings.…”