Preparing children for cross-examination: do the practice questions matter?

Abstract

Research has shown that a brief intervention involving practice and feedback can help children maintain accuracy when challenged with cross-examination-style questions. To date, however, researchers have prepared children using the same crossexamination challenges that they would encounter during the subsequent cross-examination interview. It is unknown whether the intervention will still be effective when children later face novel cross-examination-style questions. Six-to 11-year-old children (n = 132) took part in a staged memory event, and were then interviewed with analogues of direct-examination (1-2 days later) and cross-examination (6-8 weeks later). One week prior to the cross-examination interview, some children participated in a preparation session, where they were given practice answering cross-examination-style questions about an unrelated topic, and feedback on their responses. For half of these children, the crossexamination-style challenges they encountered during the preparation session were the same as the challenges they subsequently faced during cross-examination; for the others, there was no overlap. Relative to a control group that did not receive the intervention, the preparation session resulted in better performance during cross-examination, regardless of the degree of overlap. These findings are encouraging given that we can never predict the questions that cross-examining lawyers will ask children. ARTICLE HISTORY

The Juxtaposition of the Child as a Witness and a Victim: An Analysis of Legal Policy Affecting Young Witnesses in Canada

“…Peripheral questions contrastingly ask about irrelevant facts that are insignificant to the plot (e.g., emotions or thoughts felt during the event in question is taking place or descriptions of the time and place) (Andrews & Lamb, 2019). While young witnesses' resistance to central details is a positive outcome of these studies as it suggests that they are equipped with the competency to stick to the story that they know, their malleability and vulnerability to challenges about peripheral details is a cause for concern (Irvine et al, 2016).…”

“…In addressing these kinds of questions children face, several researchers have evaluated and created ways to prepare children before they are required to deliver evidence and avoid instances of damaging their credibility (Irvine et al, 2016;Hurley, 2015). Although the literature suggests its efficacy varies, as young witnesses find court preparation useful (Randell et al, 2017), the establishment of ground rules in the courtroom is not as heavily regarded as ground rules when preparing a child witness before their testimonies.…”

“…Studies of testimonies of children and adolescents are largely positivist applications that determine the witness' credibility, reliability, and general ability to understand and respond to questions asked when examined by the prosecution and cross-examined by the defence (Evans & Lyon, 2012;Irvine et al, 2016;Szjoka et al, 2017). There is, however, some discord involving childhood theorists who call for a more diverse understanding that is not wholly positivist or causal (Fellin & Callaghan, 2017;McNamee, 2016;Moran-Ellis, 2013).…”

“…Among these gaps, existing research has presented a glaring issue of the confusing nature of lawyers' questioning practices that defence counsels in particular continue to use while examining children's evidence. Challenging language, questioning their credibility, and accusing young witnesses of being mistaken or dishonest are regular strategies defence counsels use according to existing studies that evaluate case transcripts (Denne et al, 2019;Irvine, et al, 2016;Plotnikof & Woolfson, 2011). Past researchers have gone as far as to say that these such strategies often place children at a disadvantage and may negatively impact their testimonies, and far worse, the outcomes of the decisions made about individual cases (Denne et al, 2019).…”

“… See Andrews and Lamb (2019),Connolly, Coburn, and You (2014),Denne et al, (2019),Irvine et al, (2016), Szojka, et al, (2017 which evaluate large samples of case transcripts to evaluate lawyers' questioning practices in the United States, Scotland, and New Zealand.20 For a complete list of appropriate and inappropriate questions, see Appendix A.…”