-
What themes did Davis, Henderson, and Seymour (1997) uncover in their analysis of trial transcripts?
(1) delayed or incomplete reporting is used as evidence of the falsity of the claim; (1)
(2) children’s suggestibility makes them particularly susceptible to reporting erroneous suggestions provided by others; (1)
(3) children are unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. (1)
(4) children have an ulterior motive to fabricate an allegation of CSA (1) including revenge (.5), attention-seeking (.5), or the need to deflect attention away from the child’s bad behaviour (.5) (more common in trial involving an adolescent complainant than a child complainant) (.5),
(5) the child has a good relationship with the accused and having such a good relationship is inconsistent with CSA, (1)
(6) the child did not resist and so the allegation is false, (1)
(7) simply stating that the child is lying when he or she reported CSA. (1)
-
What is the effect of cross-examination on children’s true and false reports? Describe the research that supports your conclusions. Why does this matter?
Under cross-examination, children change accurate responses. (1) However, it also reduces false allegations and false denials (1). There is some inconsistency in terms of the relative effect of cross-examination on true and false reports. For instance, one researcher found that children were as likely to change an incorrect response as to change a correct response under cross-examination (1). On the other hand, another researcher reported that under cross-examination, children were more likely to change false reports (i.e., a false allegation or a false denial) than to change true reports (i.e., a true allegation). (1) There is not enough evidence to conclude that cross-examination has a stronger, weaker, or comparable effect on true and false reports. (1) This is important because the purpose of cross-examination is to reveal false testimony. (1) This will come at a price to the accuracy of accurate testimony. (1) Without knowing the relative effect of cross-examination on true and false reports, we cannot know if the price is too high (1)
-
One challenge to the early cross-examination studies is that there were always two interviews and the second was always cross-examination. Why was this a problem, what was done to eliminate the problem, what did they find, and what does it mean?
It could be that a second interview, regardless of the form it takes, leads children to change their responses (1). To address this, the second interview for some children was another direct examination and for other children it was cross-examination. (1) In this paradigm, children changed their responses more often when the second interview was cross-examination than when it was another direct examination. (1 point) This supports the position that response changes were not just a consequence of a second interview but could be attributed to the cross-examination. (1 point)
-
What are some important differences between lab-based studies and studies of children’s evidence in court that could affect rates of response change? What is the direction of the differences?
Children may be less likely to change responses in court than in a laboratory study (1) because they are likely to have been prepared for court (1) and they are likely to understand the consequences of a response change (1)
-
Based on an analysis of 42 trial transcripts, Evans, Lee, and Lyon (2009) studied 42 trial transcripts and looked at the predictors of verdict. What did they find and what do they think it means?
Complex questions posed by defence counsel (1) but not by the prosecutions (1) predicted guilty verdict.(1) Importantly, this effect appeared to have occurred when a complex question was answered by the child with “I don’t know” or a “no” followed by elaboration (1). Evans et al provide some possible explanations for this: jurors see these responses to complex question as a sign of competence (1); jurors may consider the use of complex questions by defence to be unfair (1); defence may use more complex questions when the prosecution case is strong and a conviction is almost inevitable. (1)
-
What is the relationship between memory for the original event and children’s performance on cross-examination questions? Briefly describe the hypotheses of the relevant studies, the findings of the relevant studies, and the study conclusions. (You are not expected to recall the names of the researchers, but your description should be clear enough that the marker knows which study you are citing)
Righarts et al. (2015) reasoned that if memory plays a role in the cross examination effect, children who are cross examined after a short delay (better memory) should change fewer questions than children who are interviewed after a longer delay (poorer memory). (1) There was no effect of delay on cross-examination performance.(1) Memory for the original event does not appear to account for performance under cross-examination (1).
Righarts et al (2015) reasoned that if memory plays a role, children who are more accurate under direct examination should be more resistant under cross-examination than children who were less accurate under direct examination.(1) Children who performed better under direct examination also performed better under cross-examination than children who performed worse under direct examination. (1) However all children changed some answers in cross-examination so quality of memory is not a full explanation (1)
Bettany et al. (2014) also found that children who correctly answered more direct examination questions changed fewer of their responses and resisted suggestions longer than children who answered fewer direct examination questions correctly (1). However, even children who did very well under direct examination made errors under cross-examination (1) so memory for the original event is not a complete explanation (1).
Righarts et al. (2015) reasoned that if children incorporate cross-examination suggestion into their memory for the event, they will report the suggestions in an interview conducted after cross-examination. (1) They followed-up cross-examination with a third interview that was akin to the first direct examination (1). Children were as accurate in this final interview as they had been under the first direct examination (1).
We cannot rule out memory for the event as contributing to the effect (1), but we also cannot offer it as a full explanation (1).
-
Look at the following graph. Briefly describe the relevant study, what the researchers found, and what it means.
An intensive training program (1) was developed to teach children to resist cross-examination questions. Training was given to half of the children and the other children were not trained.(1) Children in the training condition were more accurate than children who were not trained. (1) However, even in the training condition, children’s accuracy declined relative to direct examination performance (1). This study demonstrates that children can be trained to resist cross-examination, however, it is not a complete remedy (1)
-
“Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of the truth.” Who said this?
a. John Wigmore
-
What is the formal goal of cross-examination?
c. Uncover the truth
-
Arguably, in which kind of legal system is cross-examination most needed?
b. Adversarial
-
“You say this happened when you were four, is that right?” What type of question is this?
c. Tag question
-
Based on studies of actual trial transcripts, which of the following type of question is most likely to cause a child to change an earlier response?
b. Suggestive
-
When a child is giving evidence, who is permitted to ask leading questions?
a. Lawyers
-
According to Klemfuss, Quas, and Lyon (2014), what is the most common type of question asked by defence under cross-examination?
d. Suggestive
-
According to Andrews, Lamb, and Lyon (2015), how often did defence attorneys repeat questions when they cross-examined a child?
b. 33%
-
Zajac and Cannon (2009) used sequential analysis to study the probable outcome (defence question) following some event (child’s response). What was a probable outcome of a child’s request for clarification?
b. Complex question
-
Zajac and Cannon (2009) used sequential analysis to study the probable outcome (defence question) following some event (child’s response). What was a probable outcome of a child’s resistance?
a. Credibility challenging question
-
When lawyers craft credibility challenging questions, they are likely to focus on two aspects of a child’s testimony. What are they?
d. Honesty and memory
-
When inappropriate questions are asked by defence, objections commonly come from whom
d. Neither
-
What does a diagnosticity of change score that is near 100 mean?
b. there were more changes to responses that were initially incorrect than to responses that were initially correct
-
Relative to response changes that have been reported from lab studies, children are _____ likely to change responses based on archival studies of trial transcripts.
c. Less
-
Based on an archival analysis of trial transcripts, what did Andrews, Lamb, and Lyon (2015) find to be children’s most common response to repeated questions?
b. Repeat their earlier response
-
Based on an archival analysis of trial transcripts, what seems to be the question type that is most likely to lead to a response change?
c. Credibility challenging question
-
Klemfuss, Quas, and Lyon (2014) reported that as defence used more suggestive questions, relative to prosecutors, an acquittal was ____likely.
a. More
-
If poor memory for the original event explains children’s responses to cross-examination questions, what should happen to children’s performance under cross-examination if memory for the original event is strengthened?
a. It should improve
-
Two studies found that children’s performance on direct examination predicted their performance on cross-examination such that children who answered more questions correctly in direct were more resistant to cross-examination questions. What is the biggest challenge to these analyses?
c. The analyses are correlational
-
O’Neill and Zajac (2013) provided training to children on how to resist cross-examination. Training was provided either one day before cross-examination or one month before cross-examination. Relative to children who received training 1 day before cross examination, how did performance of the children who received training one month earlier compare?
a. Children who received training one month before cross-examination were less accurate
-
According to Zajac, Jury, and O’Neill, which of the following individual differences is positively associated with the number of response changes children made under cross-examination?
d. Number of siblings
|
|