No description available.

Under an adversarial legal system, witnesses� testimony may be challenged by the opposing lawyer during cross-examination. Cross-examination has been shown to negatively affect the accuracy of children�s event reports, but as yet, the mechanisms driving this effect are unknown. Experiment 1 aimed to tease apart the roles of question type and repeated interviewing in mediating children�s cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 82) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 103) took part in a staged event, and 1 to 2 days later they took part in a direct examination interview. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 6 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time. For half of the children, this second interview was a repeat of their direct examination interview. The remaining children were interviewed in a cross-examination format. A second interview reduced response accuracy after both short and long delays, however, cross-examination questioning impaired the accuracy of children�s reports the most. Although, overall, children have considerable difficulty answering cross-examination questions correctly, variation in their performance has been observed. Experiment 2 assessed whether individual differences in cognitive abilities mediate cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 116) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 58) visited the police station and subsequently reported their experiences in direct examination and cross-examination interviews. Children�s memory, receptive language ability, expressive language ability, and intelligence were also measured. Age, intelligence, and memory predicted aspects of cross-examination performance. Overall, these cognitive factors accounted for between 16.6% and 19.5% of the variance in cross-examination outcome measures. Given the negative effect of cross-examination on children�s responding, and our inability to identify the children who are most at risk of poor performance during this interview, Experiment 3 assessed our ability to facilitate children�s responding to cross-examination questioning. Specifically, the effect of manipulating the timing of a pre-trial intervention, which gives children practice and feedback at cross-examination questioning, was investigated. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 88) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 108) visited the police station. One to 3 days later they completed the direct examination interview and 6 months after the event, children were cross-examined. The timing of the preparation intervention was varied (1-day, 1-week, 1-month before cross-examination), and the children�s subsequent cross-examination performance was compared to that of children in the control group. When the preparation intervention was delivered 1 day or 1 week before the cross-examination interview, children�s cross-examination performance was significantly improved. The findings from the three experiments suggest that cross-examination is likely to pose considerable problems for children, especially younger children. Our greater understanding of factors that influence children�s responding to cross-examination questioning may guide reform of the cross-examination process for child witnesses. Bottom-up initiatives, such as pre-trial preparation, and top-down changes, including educating professionals, expert testimony, and reducing the delay to cross-examination, may improve the reliability of child witnesses� testimony during cross-examination.

Under an adversarial legal system, witnesses� testimony may be challenged by the opposing lawyer during cross-examination. Cross-examination has been shown to negatively affect the accuracy of children�s event reports, but as yet, the mechanisms driving this effect are unknown. Experiment 1 aimed to tease apart the roles of question type and repeated interviewing in mediating children�s cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 82) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 103) took part in a staged event, and 1 to 2 days later they took part in a direct examination interview. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 6 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time. For half of the children, this second interview was a repeat of their direct examination interview. The remaining children were interviewed in a cross-examination format. A second interview reduced response accuracy after both short and long delays, however, cross-examination questioning impaired the accuracy of children�s reports the most. Although, overall, children have considerable difficulty answering cross-examination questions correctly, variation in their performance has been observed. Experiment 2 assessed whether individual differences in cognitive abilities mediate cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 116) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 58) visited the police station and subsequently reported their experiences in direct examination and cross-examination interviews. Children�s memory, receptive language ability, expressive language ability, and intelligence were also measured. Age, intelligence, and memory predicted aspects of cross-examination performance. Overall, these cognitive factors accounted for between 16.6% and 19.5% of the variance in cross-examination outcome measures. Given the negative effect of cross-examination on children�s responding, and our inability to identify the children who are most at risk of poor performance during this interview, Experiment 3 assessed our ability to facilitate children�s responding to cross-examination questioning. Specifically, the effect of manipulating the timing of a pre-trial intervention, which gives children practice and feedback at cross-examination questioning, was investigated. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 88) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 108) visited the police station. One to 3 days later they completed the direct examination interview and 6 months after the event, children were cross-examined. The timing of the preparation intervention was varied (1-day, 1-week, 1-month before cross-examination), and the children�s subsequent cross-examination performance was compared to that of children in the control group. When the preparation intervention was delivered 1 day or 1 week before the cross-examination interview, children�s cross-examination performance was significantly improved. The findings from the three experiments suggest that cross-examination is likely to pose considerable problems for children, especially younger children. Our greater understanding of factors that influence children�s responding to cross-examination questioning may guide reform of the cross-examination process for child witnesses. Bottom-up initiatives, such as pre-trial preparation, and top-down changes, including educating professionals, expert testimony, and reducing the delay to cross-examination, may improve the reliability of child witnesses� testimony during cross-examination.

Thesis (LL. M.)--Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, 1974. / "April 1974." Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaf vi). Also issued in microfiche.

The rule excluding evidence of opinion is traditionally stated in broad and general terms, subject to a more or less closed list of exemptions. Stephen says that a witness’s opinion is “deemed to be irrelevant”. A witness may depose to the facts which he has observed, but he may not ordinarily state any inferences which he has drawn from those facts, or opinions founded upon facts of which he has no personal knowledge. The general rule is that the evidence of opinion or belief of a witness is irrelevant because it is the function of a court to draw inferences and form its opinion from the facts; the witnesses give evidence as to the facts and the court forms its opinion from those facts. The opinion of an expert is admissible if it is relevant. It will be relevant if the witness’s skill, training or experience enables him materially to assist the court on matters in which the court itself does not usually have the necessary knowledge to decide. Where the topic is such that an ordinary judicial officer could be expected to be able, unassisted, to draw an inference, expert evidence is superfluous. In principle, there is no rule that a witness cannot give his opinion on an issue that the court has to decide ultimately. It is not experts alone who may give their opinions on ultimate issues but, in practice, there is a strong tendency to regard the evidence of lay persons on ultimate issues as constituting prima facie evidence only. If such lay testimony remains unchallenged, it may be of greater significance. It is generally true that relevant evidence is admissible and irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. At this stage the following question may be posed: is the opinion of any witness – whether from an expert or lay person – admissible evidence? Should an opinion be admitted for purposes of persuading the court to rely on it in deciding the issue at hand? The basic answer is that relevance remains the fundamental test for admissibility. Certain issues simply cannot be decided without expert guidance. Expert opinion evidence is therefore readily received on issues relating to ballistics, engineering, chemistry, medicine, accounting and psychiatry, to mention only a few examples. The problem which arises is this: what is the best way of cross-examining the expert witness? Although the concept of skilful cross-examination conjures up the image of the crossexaminer destroying the expert witness in the witness box, total annihilation of expert evidence in court occurs only rarely. In reality, lawyers who are expected to cross-examine experts are often at a disadvantage in that they do not possess sufficient in-depth knowledge of the specific field of expertise to enable them to cross-examine the witness. Despite the expert nature of the evidence, it is suggested that the true basis of crossexamination should not be abandoned when dealing with experts. The effectiveness of crossexamination is enhanced by keeping the number of questions to a minimum as well as opening and concluding with good strong points. At the outset it should be mentioned that there is a distinction between matters of scientific fact and matters of mere opinion. On matters of scientific fact experts seldom differ but within the province of opinion one encounters difficulties. Lengthy cross-examination concerning expert’s theoretical knowledge is usually inefficient and should rarely be attempted. Cross-examination should be directed at pure logic or scientific analysis. The cross-examiner should always have relevant authority with him in court so as to confront the expert with these. The whole effect of the testimony of an expert witness can also be destroyed by putting the witness to test at the trial as to his qualifications, his experience and his ability and discriminations as an expert. A failure to meet this test renders his evidence nugatory.

This series of studies was the first to evaluate the effects of the Section 28 pilot study on the treatment of vulnerable child witnesses in English Crown Courts. Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act implemented mandatory Ground Rules Hearings, during which the judge, lawyers, and intermediary (if applicable) discussed appropriate accommodations to be made for child witnesses, following which the cross-examination could be pre-recorded. Analyses examined 43 cases that implemented the special measures ('Section 28' cases) and 44 cases that did not implement the special measures ('Non-Section 28' cases) that took place between 2012 and 2016. Analyses revealed that children in the Section 28 cases experienced less systemic delay than their counterparts. In addition, the trial preparation in the Section 28 cases was more thorough and this was associated with less risky questioning in the cross-examinations. However, younger children experienced longer delays and had fewer accommodations made for them than older children, regardless of condition. Additional analyses demonstrated that the forensic interviews replaced the evidence-in-chief in most cases almost entirely, with prosecutors asking few substantive questions. In the Section 28 cases, defense lawyers used fewer suggestive questions and asked less complex questions than Non-Section 28 defense lawyers. However, both types of lawyers still predominantly asked option-posing questions. Regardless of condition, defense lawyers asked fewer suggestive questions than their counterparts in other common-law countries and they asked younger children less complex questions. Results indicate that, although the Section 28 pilot study has not fixed all of the existing problems, it has significantly reduced systemic delay and improved the treatment of child witnesses in Crown Courts and thus should be rolled out nationally. As well, regardless of condition, English lawyers and judges seem receptive to recent special measures and appear to be effectively implementing them.

A growing body of research suggests that cross-examination may be detrimental to the accuracy of children�s event reports. The primary goal of the present research was to investigate three specific ways in which the negative effect of cross-examination could be reduced. Experiment 1 examined the effect of reducing the delay between the collection of the primary evidence and cross-examination. Five- and 6-year-old children (N = 76) took part in a staged event and were interviewed 1 to 2 days later. In this interview, children were asked to recall everything they could remember about the event. Children were then asked specific yes/no questions. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 8 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time in a cross-examination format. The 8-month delay was equivalent to the average delay experienced by children in New Zealand courts (Lash, 1995). The aim of the cross-examination interview was to talk the children out of their original responses, irrespective of the accuracy of their original account. Cross-examination questioning had a significant negative effect on the accuracy of children�s reports, regardless of timing. That is, children cross-examined soon after the memory event performed no better than those who were cross-examined after an 8-month delay. Furthermore, one week after cross-examination, children were interviewed again. The purpose of this interview was to establish whether children actually believed the responses they had given during cross-examination. During this interview, many children reversed what they had said during cross-examination, indicating that the responses they had given during cross-examination were due primarily to compliance to authority. Given the finding that compliance to authority played a significant role in children�s cross-examination performance in Experiment 1, Experiment 2 addressed whether a pre-interview intervention aimed to decrease compliance would reduce the negative impact of cross-examination. Five- and 6-year-old children (n = 59) and 9- and 10-year-old children (n = 62) participated in the same staged event and were interviewed for their primary evidence as in Experiment 1. Prior to the cross-examination interview, however, some children were warned that the interviewer might ask some questions which were tricky and that it was okay to tell her that she was wrong. Warning children prior to the cross-examination interview did not reduce the negative impact of cross-examination for either age group, even when the warning was delivered by the cross-examining interviewer. Experiment 3 addressed whether a more intensive pre-interview intervention could reduce the negative impact of cross-examination. Using the same experimental procedures as Experiment 2, half of the 5- and 6-year-old children (n = 77) and 9- and 10-year-old children (n = 87) received a practice and feedback session with cross-examination type questions prior to the target interview. While cross-examination still resulted in a decrease in children�s accuracy, children in the preparation condition performed significantly better than the control children. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the negative effect of cross-examination is highly robust and that compliance appears to be the underlying mechanism responsible for this. A practice and feedback session targeting the factors that contribute to compliance reduced, but did not eliminate, the negative effect of this questioning style. Therefore, children�s accuracy may be facilitated to some extent by cross-examination preparation prior to testifying.

A growing body of research suggests that cross-examination may be detrimental to the accuracy of children�s event reports. The primary goal of the present research was to investigate three specific ways in which the negative effect of cross-examination could be reduced. Experiment 1 examined the effect of reducing the delay between the collection of the primary evidence and cross-examination. Five- and 6-year-old children (N = 76) took part in a staged event and were interviewed 1 to 2 days later. In this interview, children were asked to recall everything they could remember about the event. Children were then asked specific yes/no questions. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 8 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time in a cross-examination format. The 8-month delay was equivalent to the average delay experienced by children in New Zealand courts (Lash, 1995). The aim of the cross-examination interview was to talk the children out of their original responses, irrespective of the accuracy of their original account. Cross-examination questioning had a significant negative effect on the accuracy of children�s reports, regardless of timing. That is, children cross-examined soon after the memory event performed no better than those who were cross-examined after an 8-month delay. Furthermore, one week after cross-examination, children were interviewed again. The purpose of this interview was to establish whether children actually believed the responses they had given during cross-examination. During this interview, many children reversed what they had said during cross-examination, indicating that the responses they had given during cross-examination were due primarily to compliance to authority. Given the finding that compliance to authority played a significant role in children�s cross-examination performance in Experiment 1, Experiment 2 addressed whether a pre-interview intervention aimed to decrease compliance would reduce the negative impact of cross-examination. Five- and 6-year-old children (n = 59) and 9- and 10-year-old children (n = 62) participated in the same staged event and were interviewed for their primary evidence as in Experiment 1. Prior to the cross-examination interview, however, some children were warned that the interviewer might ask some questions which were tricky and that it was okay to tell her that she was wrong. Warning children prior to the cross-examination interview did not reduce the negative impact of cross-examination for either age group, even when the warning was delivered by the cross-examining interviewer. Experiment 3 addressed whether a more intensive pre-interview intervention could reduce the negative impact of cross-examination. Using the same experimental procedures as Experiment 2, half of the 5- and 6-year-old children (n = 77) and 9- and 10-year-old children (n = 87) received a practice and feedback session with cross-examination type questions prior to the target interview. While cross-examination still resulted in a decrease in children�s accuracy, children in the preparation condition performed significantly better than the control children. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the negative effect of cross-examination is highly robust and that compliance appears to be the underlying mechanism responsible for this. A practice and feedback session targeting the factors that contribute to compliance reduced, but did not eliminate, the negative effect of this questioning style. Therefore, children�s accuracy may be facilitated to some extent by cross-examination preparation prior to testifying.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1998. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. [167]-174).

Gathering evidence from young and vulnerable witnesses requires special care, and subjecting them to the traditional adversarial form of examination and cross-examination – often characterized by overly leading, complex, and confusing questioning – has come under increased scrutiny. The present program of research was designed to investigate: 1) four features of lawyers’ questioning techniques (question type [Chapter 1], linguistic complexity [Chapter 2], question repetition [Chapter 3], and question content [Chapter 4]), 2) how these parameters affected children’s responses (including an in-depth analysis of children’s propensity to express uncertainty [Chapter 5]), and 3) whether the children’s ages affected the ways they were questioned or how they responded. The sample of court transcripts was drawn from 36 trials involving 56 children aged 5 to 17 years old who testified about alleged sexual abuse in Scotland between 2009 and 2014. Analyses showed that a large proportion of the questions posed to children by lawyers were suggestive questions that implied expected responses or introduced undisclosed information. Questions were overly complex linguistically, heavily repetitious, and focused to a large extent on peripheral elements of the allegations. In response, children acquiesced to suggestions most of the time and expressed uncertainty less than might be expected, given the nature of the questioning. Overall, both prosecutors and defense lawyers were insensitive to the capacities of children of different ages. The way children are questioned in court can have negative influences on the quality of the evidence obtained, regardless of the lawyers’ roles or the children’s ages. It is suggested that, in order for trials to be fair, evidence needs to be elicited in accordance with research-informed best-practice guidelines. More advanced training, the use of intermediaries, and the Barnahus model are discussed as potential ways to support the implementation of best-practice questioning strategies.