Juvenile and family courts hold a unique position among the many stakeholders that comprise a healing community for persons experiencing adversity or trauma. Specifically, judges and other court leaders can promote the implementation of screening for trauma, the alignment of appropriate and effective treatment for trauma when indicated, and the accountability of systems for coordination and support of such services. To that end, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges undertook a field‐based project — consisting of multiple semi‐structured court surveys — to elucidate the key features of a trauma‐informed court and how to assist courts in becoming more trauma‐responsive for both consumers and staff. With the assistance of courts in 11 pilot sites across the nation, the project has led to the development of a protocol called trauma consultation or trauma audit, which is outlined here. Our work in developing the consultation protocol highlighted the need to better understand (1) the prevalence and impact of secondary traumatic stress in court staff, (2) the potential for environment to contribute to traumatic stress reactions, and (3) the importance of consistent trauma screenings and subsequent use of findings. Practical suggestions for courts to become more trauma‐informed are also provided.

Interviewers often face respondents reluctant to disclose sensitive, embarrassing or potentially damaging information. We explored effects of priming 5 states of mind on willingness to disclose: including 2 expected to facilitate disclosure (self-affirmation, attachment security), and 3 expected to inhibit disclosure (self-disaffirmation, attachment insecurity, mortality salience). Israeli Jewish participants completed a survey including a manipulation of 1 of these states of mind, followed by questions concerning hostile thoughts and behaviors toward the Israeli Arab outgroup, past minor criminal behaviors, and socially undesirable traits and behaviors. Self-affirmation led to more disclosures of all undesirable behaviors than neutral priming, whereas self-disaffirmation led to less disclosures. Mortality salience led to fewer disclosures of socially undesirable and criminal behaviors compared to neutral priming, but more disclosures of hostile thoughts and behaviors toward Israeli Arabs. Security priming facilitated disclosure of hostile attitudes toward Israeli Arabs. However, neither security nor insecurity priming had any other significant effects. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract

Eddie Torbio-Ruiz was asked to come to the police station in Reno, Nevada, voluntarily, to discuss allegations that he had sexually molested his girlfriend's two underage granddaughters. Although Eddie's native language was Spanish and he spoke English poorly, he was interrogated by English-speaking Detective Curtis Lampert. After asking a series of background questions, Lampert began an accusatory interrogation designed to cause Eddie to admit to the accusations against him. Throughout the interrogation, Lampert spoke faster than even native English speakers would understand easily. Though Eddie appeared superfi cially to understand Lampert, his problems with understanding became clearer as the interrogation progressed.Eddie initially denied all allegations, but Detective Lampert was a master interrogator who very cleverly enacted strategies interrogation scholars have shown to promote both true and false confessions. As Lampert used these strategies to move Eddie from denial to admission, Eddie appeared to admit to sexually abusive behaviors with the girls. But at several points he answered "yes" to questions or assertions that he had committed specifi c actions toward the girls, only to answer with a vehement "Oh, no!" when asked the very same question only a short time later. At many points in the interrogation, it was diffi cult to clearly infer that he knew what he had been asked, what he was responding to, or whether he and Detective Lampert were talking about the same things. Perhaps the clearest indicator of Eddie's misunderstanding came after he had been charged. When his attorney, Jennifer Lunt, tried to tell him the implications of his confession, Eddie denied that

No abstract