Question Types, Responsiveness and Self‐contradictions when Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys Question Alleged Victims of Child Sexual Abuse

Abstract

We examined 120 trial transcripts of 6-to 12-year-old children testifying to sexual abuse. Age and attorney role were analyzed in relation to question types, children's responsiveness and self-contradiction frequency. A total of 48,716 questionresponse pairs were identified. Attorneys used more closed-ended than open-ended prompts. Prosecutors used more invitations (3% vs. 0%), directives, and option-posing prompts than defense attorneys, who used more suggestive prompts than prosecutors. Children were more unresponsive to defense attorneys than to prosecutors. Self-contradictions were identified in 95% of the cases. Defense attorneys elicited more self-contradictions than prosecutors, but nearly all prosecutors (86%) elicited at least one selfcontradiction. Suggestive questions elicited more self-contradictions than any other prompt type. There were no associations with age. These findings suggest that neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys question children in developmentally appropriate ways.

Do Prosecutors Use Interview Instructions or Build Rapport with Child Witnesses?

“…Instead, over 80% of prosecutors’ what/how questions were static. These findings are consistent with research on prosecutors’ questions about abuse itself, with very small percentages of invitations (Andrews et al, ).…”

“…First, invitations and cued invitations are uncommon in forensic interviews unless interviewers have been specially trained (Sternberg et al, ). Indeed, prosecutors at trial ask very few invitations when they question children about the details of sexual abuse (Andrews, Lamb, & Lyon, ). Prosecutors might use a few “What happened?” or “What happened next?” questions, which would qualify as invitations or as cued invitations, but it is unlikely that a prosecutor would use a cued invitation simply to elicit additional information (using the form “Tell me more about…”) for two reasons.…”

‘Where were your clothes?’ Eliciting descriptions of clothing placement from children alleging sexual abuse in criminal trials and forensic interviews

“…Unfortunately, the Court did not report how the child was asked about clothing. Research examining how children are questioned about sexual abuse in court has shown that yes/no questions predominate (Andrews, Lamb, & Lyon, ; Hanna, Davies, Crothers, & Henderson, ; Klemfuss, Quas, & Lyon, ; Stolzenberg & Lyon, ). Hence, it is likely that the child in Emmett was asked yes/no questions about his and the defendant's clothing placement (e.g., ‘Were your/his clothes on?’ or ‘Were your/his clothes off’?…”

Spatial language, question type, and young children’s ability to describe clothing: Legal and developmental implications.

“…Most often, children are questioned with yes/no or forced-choice questions containing spatial terms (e.g., “Were your clothes on or off?”) (Stolzenberg & Lyon, in press). Although developmental psychologists have mapped out children’s emerging understanding of spatial language, focusing on prepositions and verb phrases (e.g., Farran & Atkinson, 2016), and a great deal of applied psychology research has examined the effects of question type on children’s eyewitness performance (e.g., Andrews, Lamb, & Lyon, 2015), little is known about how well young children answer different types of questions incorporating spatial language. In practice, this is particularly important when there is a less than perfect fit between the situation and the spatial term.…”