Disorder in the courtroom? Child witnesses under cross-examination

Zajac, Rachel; O‘Neill, Sarah; Hayne, Harlene

doi:10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.006

Cited by 67 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 138 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, a primary purpose of cross-examination, at least in practice, is to induce a witness to change his/her statements, thereby making the witness appear unreliable or perhaps even deceptive (Glissan, 1991). Although cross-examination is sometimes regarded as a powerful truth-seeking tool (Stevens, 1992;Wigmore, 1974), laboratory research has shown that, rather than serving its role as a safeguard for the truth, cross-examination is often detrimental to the accuracy of eyewitness accounts due to its adversarial nature (Zajac, O'Neill, & Hayne, 2012).…”

Section: Context Of Resmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval-enhanced suggestibility: A retrospective and a new investigation.

Chan

Manley

Lang

2017

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyewitnesses are often repeatedly interviewed about the same crime, and they might be exposed to misleading information between these interviews. Taking a memory test before being exposed to misinformation can ironically increase the likelihood that an eyewitness would fall prey to the misinformation effect-a finding termed Retrieval-Enhanced Suggestibility (RES). In this paper, we outline the motivation behind the original research on RES, summarize the theoretical explanations that have been used to explain this finding, and provide a review of the extant empirical findings. We then report the results of two new experiments that examined whether participants, upon being informed that they had provided inconsistent responses during the prior recall tests, could overcome the RES effect during a final recognition test in which the correct event detail and the misinformation were offered as response options. The results showed that RES persisted in this recognition test, and the level of inconsistencies shown by participants during the prior recall tests predicted their final recognition performance, such that more inconsistent witnesses were also more error-prone during the final recognition test-but this relation was stronger for misinformation-induced inconsistencies than for spontaneously-produced inconsistencies.

show abstract

Section: Context Of Resmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval-enhanced suggestibility: A retrospective and a new investigation.

Chan

Manley

Lang

2017

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is an important omission given that many legal situations involve terminology that children have not yet acquired (Cooper, Wallin, Quas, & Lyon, 2010;Saywitz, Jaenicke, & Camparo, 1990) and questions that are semantically complex (Korkman, Santtila, Drzewiecki, & Sandnabba, 2008;Zajac, O'Neill, & Hayne, 2012). Children can say "don't know" to such questions, but this response may not accurately reflect their knowledge.…”

Section: The "Don't Understand" Rulementioning

confidence: 89%

The use of ground rules in investigative interviews with children: A synthesis and call for research

Brubacher

Poole

Dickinson

2015

Developmental Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…All too often such victims -already traumatised by the primary offence -are then re-traumatised by the very system that is there to investigate, corroborate, and punish the initial abuse (Anderson et al, 2002). This may cause adverse, and long-term, effects on children's mental health, education, and willingness to engage with the legal process in the future (Zajac et al, 2012). The authors thus concur with Munro's (2010Munro's ( , 2011aMunro's ( , 2011b conclusion that to protect the welfare of children, as well as to get best evidence and secure convictions, children's feelings and experiences need to be taken into account.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet this process is in direct violation of the principles involved in eliciting the most complete and accurate evidence from children (Zajac et al, 2012). Thus, it appears that:…”

Section: Children Are Often Subjected To Aggressive Cross-examinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness and impact of the child protection and criminal justice systems in cases of intrafamilial child sexual abuse

Gekoski

Horvath

Davidson

2016

Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful to the Office of the Children's Commissioner for England, who funded the Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) on which this paper is based. The authors would also like to thank colleagues Julie Grove-Hills and Clare Choak for their hard work on the REA, and Antonia Bilfulco and Julie Grove-Hills for their work on previous research on police practice with victims of child sexual abuse, which this work draws on. 2 AbstractPurpose: This paper reports on the findings from a study commissioned by the Office of the Children's Commissioner (OCC) in England, concerning intrafamilial child sexual abuse (IFCSA)/incest. Specifically, it aims to explore the evidence about child protection and criminal justice responses to victims of IFCSA in the UK and where the gaps in these approaches lie.Design: A Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) was used, the function of which is to: search the literature as comprehensively as possible within given time constraints; collate descriptive outlines of the available evidence on a topic and critically appraise it; sift out studies of poor quality; and provide an overview of the evidence. Over 57,000 documents were scanned, and 296 ultimately systematically analysed. Findings:It was found that children may be re-victimised by various aspects of 'the system' and professionals within it, including social workers, police officers, and lawyers.Limitations: An REA is not a full systematic review, differing in the scope and depth of the searches and depending almost exclusively on electronic databases, not accompanied by searching journals by hand. Value:The findings of this research provide the evidence-base for a new two-year inquiry into the subject of IFCSA by the OCC. Implications for practice:Victims of IFCSA may benefit from the following changes:• the prioritising of children's needs over bureaucratic demands;• better multi-agency working;• the consistent use of ABE interviews in child-friendly environments;• the increased use of special measures in court; and• the piloting of specialist sexual offence courts.3

show abstract

Disorder in the courtroom? Child witnesses under cross-examination

Cited by 67 publications

References 138 publications

Retrieval-enhanced suggestibility: A retrospective and a new investigation.

Retrieval-enhanced suggestibility: A retrospective and a new investigation.

The use of ground rules in investigative interviews with children: A synthesis and call for research

The effectiveness and impact of the child protection and criminal justice systems in cases of intrafamilial child sexual abuse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About