Expert Testimony on the Suggestibility of Children: Does It Fit?

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511500114.015

15 - Expert Testimony on the Suggestibility of Children: Does It Fit?

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 July 2009

Thomas D. Lyon

Edited by

Bette L. Bottoms ,

Margaret Bull Kovera and

Bradley D. McAuliff

Show author details

Thomas D. Lyon: Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Law University of Southern California Law School
Bette L. Bottoms: Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
Margaret Bull Kovera: Affiliation:
Florida International University
Bradley D. McAuliff: Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Book contents

Get access

Summary

State v. Sloan (1995 [Mo. Ct. App.]) was a criminal case of child sexual abuse. A.D., the 6-year-old alleged victim, was dropped off on Friday by her mother at her grandmother's house, where the child's aunt Evelyn and the defendant also resided. Two days later, on Sunday, the child's aunt Anita phoned the child's mother and told her that something was wrong. A.D. then told her mother that the defendant had sexually assaulted her the day before. The mother called the child abuse hot line. On Thursday, 5 days after the alleged abuse, a social worker and a police detective interviewed the child at her school. A.D. reported that her aunt Evelyn had allowed her to get into bed with the defendant and had then left the house. She stated that defendant had “placed his finger in her punkie,” that she had touched his “wiener,” and that defendant “had placed her on his wiener.” Approximately 3 weeks later, the police detective reinterviewed the child, and she gave a similar report. The child testified at the trial, and her testimony was consistent with the testimony of her mother, the social worker, and the detective. The testimony of the child's aunt Evelyn and her grandmother (who both testified for the defense) as to the events subsequent to the alleged abuse was consistent with the child's.

The defendant was convicted, but the conviction was overturned on appeal.

Type: Chapter
Information: Children, Social Science, and the Law , pp. 378 - 411

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511500114.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barlow v. State, 507 S.E.2d 416 (Ga. 1998)

Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1999). The suggestibility of children's memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 419–439CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Francoeur, E. (2000). Children's use of anatomically detailed dolls to report genital touching in a medical examination: Developmental and gender comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 74–83Google Scholar

Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., Francouer, E., & Renick, A. (1995). Anatomically detailed dolls do not facilitate preschoolers' reports of a pediatric examination involving genital touching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 95–109Google Scholar

Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Hembrooke, H. (1998). Reliability and credibility of young children's reports: From research to policy and practice. American Psychologist, 53, 136–151CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bruck, M., Hembrooke, H., & Ceci, S. J. (1997). Children's reports of pleasant and unpleasant events. In D. Read & S. Lindsay (Eds.), Recollections of trauma: Scientific research and clinical practice (pp. 199–213). New York: Plenum PressCrossRef

Carter, C., Bottoms, B., & Levine, M. (1996). Linguistic and socio-emotional influences on the accuracy of children's reports. Law & Human Behavior, 20, 335–358CrossRef Google Scholar

Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403–439CrossRef Google Scholar

Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children's testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Ceci, S. J., Loftus, E. F., Leichtman, M. D., & Bruck, M. (1994). The possible role of source misattribution in the creation of false beliefs among preschoolers. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 62, 304–320CrossRef Google Scholar

Ceci, S. J., Powell, M. B., & Crossman, A. M. (1999). The scientific status of children's memory and testimony. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: Supplemental Vol. 3 (pp. 40–69). St. Paul, MN: West

Committee of Concerned Social Scientists. (1993). Reprinted in M. Bruck & S. J. Ceci (1995). Amicus brief for the case of State of New Jersey v. Michaels presented by committee of concerned social scientists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 272–322

Commonwealth v. Allen, 665 N.E.2d 105 (Ct. App. Mass. 1996)

Commonwealth v. Cheryl Amirault LeFave, Middlesex S.S., Superior Court, Criminal Action Nos. 85–63, 66, 67; 85–2678–2680 (1998)

Commonwealth v. Ianello, 515 N.E.2d 1181 (Mass. 1987)

Commonwealth v. Trowbridge, 647 N.E.2d 413 (Mass. 1995)

Daubert v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

Davis, S. L., & Bottoms, B. L. (1998, March). Effects of social support on children's eyewitness reports. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology–Law Society, Redondo Beach, CA

Davis, S. L., & Bottoms, B. L. (2001). Social support and children's eyewitness memory. In M. L. Eisen, G. S. Goodman, & J. A. Quas (Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Deloache, J. S., & Marzolf, D. P. (1995). The use of dolls to interview young children: Issues of symbolic representation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 155–173CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Doe v. Johnson, 52 F.3d 1448 (7th Cir. 1995)

Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. (1997). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Vol. 1). St. Paul, MN: West

Federal Rules of Evidence (2001)

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)

Garven, S., Wood, J. M., & Malpass, R. S. (2000). Allegations of wrongdoing: The effects of reinforcement on children's mundane and fantastic claims. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 38–49CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Garven, S., Wood, J. M., Malpass, R. S., & Shaw, J. S. (1998). More than suggestion: The effect of interviewing techniques from the McMartin preschool case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 347–359CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997)

Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1988)

Goodman, G. S., Emery, R. E., & Haugaard, J. J. (1998). Developmental psychology and law: Divorce, child maltreatment, foster care, and adoption. In W. Damon (Series Ed.), D. Kuhn, & R. S. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (5th ed., pp. 775–874). New York: Wiley

Heller v. Shaw Industries, Inc. 167 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 1999)

Holmgren, B. K. (1997). Expert testimony on children's suggestibility: Should it be admitted?APSAC Advisor, 10(1), 10–14Google Scholar

In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717 (3rd Cir. 1994)

Isquith, P. K., Levine, M., & Scheiner, J. (1993). Blaming the child: Attribution of responsibility to victims of child sexual abuse. In G. S. Goodman & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony (pp. 203–228). New York: Guilford Press

Joiner v. General Electric Co., 78 F.3d 524 (11th Cir. 1996)

Kovera, M. B., & Borgida, E. (1998). Expert scientific testimony on child witnesses in the age of Daubert. In S. J. Ceci & H. Hembrooke (Eds.), Expert witnesses in child abuse cases: What can and should be said in court (pp. 185–215). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P. C. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178–191CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers?Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574–586CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kumho Tire Co., Ltd., v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999)

Leichtman, M. D., & Ceci, S. J. (1995). The effects of stereotypes and suggestions on preschoolers' reports. Developmental Psychology, 31, 568–578CrossRef Google Scholar

Leippe, M. R., & Romanczyk, A. (1987). Children on the witness stand: A communication/persuasion analysis of jurors' reactions to child witnesses. In S. J. Ceci, M. P. Toglia, & D. F. Ross (Eds.), Children's eyewitness memory (pp. 155–177). New York: Springer-VerlagCrossRef

Lindsay, D. S., Read, J. D., & Sharma, K. (1998). Accuracy and confidence in person identification: The relationship is strong when witnessing conditions vary widely. Psychological Science, 9, 215–218CrossRef Google Scholar

Lyon, T. D. (1999). The new wave in children's suggestibility research: A critique. Cornell Law Review, 84, 1004–1087Google Scholar

Lyon, T. D. (2002). Scientific support for child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. In J. Conte (Ed.), Critical issues in child sexual abuse (pp. 107–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Lyon, T. D., & Koehler, J. J. (1998). Where researchers fear to tread: Interpretive differences among testifying experts in child sexual abuse cases. In S. J. Ceci & H. Hembrooke (Eds.), Expert witnesses in child abuse cases: What can and should be said in court (pp. 249–263). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Mason, M. A. (1995). The child sex abuse syndrome: The other major issue in State of New Jersey v. Margaret Kelly Michaels. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 399–410CrossRef Google Scholar

McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (1998, August). Are layperson's beliefs about suggestibility consistent with expert opinion? Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco

Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc., 151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998)

Morison, S., & Greene, E. (1992). Juror and expert knowledge of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 595–613CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mueller, C. B., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2000). Evidence under the rules: Text, cases, and problems. Gaithersburg, NY: Aspen

Myers, J. E. B. (1997). Evidence in child abuse and neglect cases (Vol. 1, 3rd ed.). New York: Wiley

Myers, J. E. B., Saywitz, K. J., & Goodman, G. S. (1996). Psychological research on children as witnesses: Practical implications for forensic interviews and courtroom testimony. Pacific Law Journal, 28, 3–91Google Scholar

People v. Dunkle, 602 A.2d 830 (Pa. 1992)

People v. Gibbs, 550 N.Y.S.2d 400 (1990)

People v. McDonald, 690 P.2d 709 (Cal. 1984)

Peterson, C., & Bell, M. (1996). Children's memory for traumatic injury. Child Development 67, 3045–3070CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Peterson, C., & Biggs, M. (1997). Interviewing children about trauma: Problems with “specific” questions. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 10, 279–290CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Poole, D. A., & Lamb, M. E. (1998). Investigative interviews of children: A guide for helping professionals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Poole, D. A., & White, L. T. (1991). Effects of question repetition on the eyewitness testimony of children and adults. Developmental Psychology, 27, 975–986CrossRef Google Scholar

Poole, D. A., & White, L. T. (1993). Two years later: Effects of question repetition and retention interval on the eyewitness memory of children and adults. Developmental Psychology, 29, 844–853CrossRef Google Scholar

Porter v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., 9 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 1993)

Ross, D. F., Dunning, D., Toglia, M. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1989). Age stereotypes, communication modality, and mock jurors' perceptions of the child witness. In S. J. Ceci, D. F. Ross, & M. P. Toglia, Perspectives on children's testimony (pp. 37–56). New York: Springer-VerlagCrossRef

Saywitz, K. J., Goodman, G. S., Nicholas, E., & Moan, S. F. (1991). Children's memories of a physical examination involving genital touch: Implications for reports of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 682–691CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Saywitz, K. J., & Lyon, T. D. (2002). Coming to grips with children's suggestibility. In M. Eisen, G. Goodman, & J. Quas (Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview (pp. 85–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Schutz v. State, 957 S.W.2d 52 (Ct. Crim. App. Tex. 1997)

Scientists for the Accurate Communication of Data. (1998). Amicus Curiae brief in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Cheryl Amirault LeFave, Middlesex S.S., Supreme Judicial Court, No. SJC-7529

Shyamalan, B., & Lamb, S. (1995, August). The effects of repeated questioning on preschoolers reports of abusive behavior. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association

Sorensen v. Shaklee Corp., 31 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 1994)

State v. Biezer, 947 S.W.2d 540 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)

State v. Ellis, 669 A.2d 752 (Me. 1996)

State v. Erickson, 454 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)

State v. Gersin, 668 N.E.2d 486 (Ohio 1996)

State v. Gordius, 544 A.2d 309 (Me. 1988)

State v. Hulbert, 481 N.W.2d 329 (Iowa 1992)

State v. James, 560 A.2d 426 (Conn. 1989)

State v. Kirschbaum, 535 N.W.2d 462 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995)

State v. Long, 575 A.2d 435 (N.J. 1990)

State v. Malarney, 617 So.2d 739 (Fl. Ct. App. 1993)

State v. Mazerolle, 614 A.2d 68 (Me. 1992)

State v. Russell, 571 A.2d 229 (Me. 1990)

State v. Sloan, 912 S.W.2d 592 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)

State v. Steffes, 887 P.2d 1196 (Mont. 1994)

State v. Swan, 790 P.2d 610 (Wash. 1990)

Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Esplin, P. W., Orbach, Y., & Hershkowitz, I. (2002). Using a structured protocol to improve the quality of investigative interviews. In M. Eisen, G. Goodman, & J. Quas (Eds.), Memory and suggestibility in the forensic interview (pp. 409–436). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Stringer v. Commonwealth, 956 S.W.2d 883 (Ky. 1997)

United States v. Brien, 59 F.3d 274 (1st Cir. 1995)

United States v. Cacy, 43 M.J. 214 (1995)

United States v. Curry, 977 F.2d 1042 (7th Cir. 1992)

United States v. Daniels, 64 F.3d 311 (7th Cir. 1995)

United States v. Downing, 609 F.Supp. 784 (E.D. Penn. 1985)

United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224 (3rd Cir. 1985)

United States v. George, 975 F.2d 1431 (9th Cir. 1992)

United States v. Hall, 165 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir. 1999)

United States v. Harris, 995 F.2d 532 (4th Cir. 1993)

United States v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870 (8th Cir. 1996)

United States v. Larkin, 978 F.2d 964 (7th Cir. 1992)

United States v. Nguyen, 793 F.Supp. 497 (D.N.J. 1992)

United States v. Norwood, 939 F.Supp. 1132 (D.N.J. 1996)

United States v. Rouse, 100 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 1996)

United States v. Rouse, 111 F.3d 561 (8th Cir. 1997)

United States v. Scheffer, 118 S.Ct. 1261 (1998)

United States v. Shay, 57 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 1995)

United States v. Smith, 736 F.2d 1103 (6th Cir. 1984)

Utley v. State, 826 S.W.2d 268 (Ark. 1992)

Westcott, H. (1998). Jeopardy in the courtroom. [Review of the book Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children's testimony]. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 525

Wigmore, J. H. (1904). A treatise on the system of evidence in trials at common law (Vol. 3). Boston: Little, Brown

Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. P. T. (1979). Is the psychology of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives (pp. 13–40). Chichester, UK: Wiley