Child Testimony in Court 1

Should child testimony be admissible in court?

Isabella Cook

Department of Psychology, Mansfield University

Child Forensic Psychology

Dr. Karri Verno

May 05, 2022

Child Testimony in Court 2

Abstract

This paper analyzes why child testimony should not be admissible in a court of law. By

exploring the factors and influences on child testimony, it exposes the variables of contamination

that pose issue. It explores the cognitive development of children as it relates to memory recall

and cognitive limitations. The sole test for competence of a child’s ability to testify is if they can

understand and respond to questions being asked. There are significant concerns that are raised

about child testimony ethically, morally, and procedurally. Memory recall and cognitive abilities

are very limited at a young age, which makes them more suspectable to false memory recall and

suggestibility corruption. Such high potential risk of suggestibility and cognitive limitations of a

child results in the conclusion that their testimony should not be admissible in a court of law.

Keywords: contamination, cognitive development, memory recall, suggestibly

Child Testimony in Court 3

Should child testimony be admissible in court?

In a court of law presenting a strong case procedurally requires reliable and credible

testimony. This refers to an accurate account given by a bystander, victim, or individual that has

knowledge of the event they have witnessed or been a victim of (Koenig,2004). The recollection

of the event is used as evidence to show what occurred from a witness’ point of view. Witness

testimony is a specialized focus in cognitive psychology. This shifts the focus on child cognitive

abilities to recall memories such as a stressful event or criminal act, as well as analyzing the

influencing factors that lead to contaminated child testimony. Should child testimony be

admissible in court? With the evidence presented of high potential suggestibility and cognitive

limitations, child testimony should not be admissible in a court of law.

Cognitive Development

Understanding the qualifications of a competent witness includes qualities such as

sufficient intelligence, ability to observe, recall, and communicate, ability to comprehend the

severity of an oath, and the necessity to tell the truth (Lampinen,1995). Examining and

understanding the working memory of a child in the early development stages are a key aspect of

whether a child fits the requirements to testify and make a statement. Cognitive limitations and

the vulnerability of a child stand a big threat to the credibility on their recall of events (Goodman

1986).

Jean Piaget’s cognitive development at an early age is a comprehensive theory about

environmental variables and development of human intelligence (Wei,1971). Jean Piaget is

considered one of the most influential researchers specified to the category of developmental

psychology in the 20th century (Wei,1971). This theory suggests as a child grows their
Child Testimony in Court 4

intelligence grows and changes with them. Not only does knowledge get broader but the child

begins to develop and understanding and perspective of the world around them. Piaget’s theory

formed assumptions such as:

1. Children construct their own knowledge as a response to their surrounding

environments and experiences (Wei,1971).

2. Children are independent leaners without reward of an adult or older children

(Wei,1971).

3. Children are motivated by nature (Wei,1971).

The four stages his theory explain stages of the child cognitive development. The

first stage is sensorimotor stage which is ages birth to 18-24 months (considered infancy).

This is the period of which intelligence is demonstrated through motor activity. At this

stage knowledge of the world and language is very limited but in development. Memory

can be formed but unable to be recalled. Recalled memory has a high chance of being

fragmented leaving memory gaps to fill. The second stage is known as pre-operational

stage which is ages 18-24 months through 7 years old (considered toddler and early

childhood). This is the period egocentric thinking dominates. Thinking is done in a

nonlogical and nonreversible way (Wei,1971). The ability to understand and comprehend

conversation is slim and not yet fully developed. Memory and memory recall begins to

form in a more complex manner. The third stage is the concrete operational stage ages 7

years old to 11 years old (considered elementary and early adolescence). Egocentric

thoughts begin to diminish. Operational thinking begins to develop and become more

complex (Wei, 1971). The last stage is formal operational stage adolescence to

adulthood. Early in this stage egocentric though begins to return. Many individuals are
Child Testimony in Court 5

looked upon as not thinking formally in this stage. Intelligence is more complex using

abstract concepts.

Piaget theory provides a strong foundation for constructivist learning (Wei,1971).

Piaget believed that biological development was the driving force to push a child to the

next cognitive stage. Analyzing the theory presented by Jean Piaget, a child's intelligence

and knowledge of the world is very venerable metaphorically mendable at specific

periods of cognitive development. It is important to consider not only the ability to recall

memories, but the development of both their knowledge and intelligence. Memory recall

and cognitive abilities are very limited at a young age which makes them more

suspectable to false memory recall and suggestibility corruption.

Influencing Factors

In any conducted interview or interrogation there poses many factors that could play a

role into the contamination of statements and testimony of a child. Introducing any form of

suggestibility, bias, or corrupt technique could result into skewed memory and false memory

recall. Children are especially vulnerable to these aspects of corruption due to their development

limitations.

Suggestive Interviewing

Conducting interviews that are free from misleading information and bias leading

to high levels of suggestibility is immensely important. Especially regarding a child as

they are more vulnerable to suggestion and coercion. A single suggestive interview may

be the detrimental move to introducing false memory into a child's mind leading to false

reports (false reports: claims made by a child that are factually inaccurate) and wrongful
Child Testimony in Court 6

convictions (Goodman, 1986). If a child is not able to fully recall and even the memory is

known as fragmented. A suggestive interview will induce ideas to fill the lost parts,

therefore, introducing false memories. Asking questions that provide new information

should be avoided as they introduce suggestibility (Example: “Are you sure it was your

father and not your uncle?”). The new information brought to light may work backwards

and distort the original memory known as the misinformation effect (Luus, 1995).

Sticking to open ended question can help limit suggestibility.

Interviewer Bias

Suggestive interviews can be shaped from the presence of interviewer bias. An

interviewer's bias can be the driving force to create the high presence of suggestibility

(Whitehouse, 2010). These factors can be introduced through the interviewer

internalizing prior beliefs about the occurrence of events or attempting elicit statements

or information to fit their theory (Whitehouse,2010). A bias can be created therefore

effecting the way questions are being asked and answered. A child tends to struggle

controlling their memory functions as well as distinguishing reality and focusing on a

single aspect of an experience (Whitehouse, 2010). Introducing a bias may begin to

confuse a child and coerce them into the theory being presented through the interviewer's

bias and beliefs.

Effects of Repeated Questions

Asking a child yes/no questions repeatedly throughout the interview often results

in the child changing their answers (Wyman, 2018). This is an interview technique that

can be used in order to retrieve answers from a child that appears unsure. Children are
Child Testimony in Court 7

immensely vulnerable to this specific interviewing technique. When used on a child it can

go one of multiple ways. The child may believe the interviewer is asking the question

again due to the first answer they gave being wrong. This resulting in the child changing

their answer. A child may also change their answer to appease the interviewer with the

goal of making them happy. Finally, the child may begin to believe that the repeated

question was an event that occurred to them and agree to the statement. This introduces

suggestibility back into the mix.

McMartin Preschool Trail

The McMartin preschool trial was a major case based on child testimony and memory recall.

This case was an alleged sexual abuse case against seven teachers employed McMartin

preschool. The seven teachers we accused of more than 397 sexual crimes against more than 100

children. Many children have a memory of bizarre events such as sexual acts occurring at farms,

circuses, car washes, storeroom, and many more unusual places. The testimony of the children

was questioned under light when the bizarre accusations became more inconsistent and shocking.

The focus quickly shifted on the credibility of the children's accusations against the teachers.

The children's reports and testimony were highly contested when multiple variables shed

light that led to the contamination of the children's account of events. The parents received letter

disclosing information on the accusations of abuse by workers employed at Mcmartin Preschool.

This induced a que of parents questioning their children in a suggestive manner which can

introduce false memories of them being abused as well. The children were also interviewed in a

highly suggestive manner by social workers that may have led them to form and internalize the

abuse that never occurred. This trial was marked the most expensive in history costing over $15
Child Testimony in Court 8

million dollars. The court ruled in favor of the teachers due to lack of evidence and high doubt

present. This led to no convictions being implemented and the teacher acquitted of all charges.

Opposing Argument

When it comes to sexual or physical abuse cases, many times a child will be named as a

witness and testify. Though children's memory may be less developed than that of an adult, it

does not specifically mean the information they provide is always inaccurate. When competency

is scaled, and interviews are conducted without the presence of interview bias, suggestibility, and

corrupt interview techniques, a child can be viewed as a credible witness. There have been

multiple changes in professional practices and legal reforms that expanded the ability for

children to testify in a court of law. However, many challenges remain prevalent with child

testimony. The susceptibility of suggestion and the vulnerability of a child is still an issue even

when deemed fit to testify. Protecting the rights of the accused as well as the child themselves

should remain a main concern.

Conclusion

A child is incredibly susceptible and vulnerable to the environment they are surrounded

by. They are innocent human beings that have yet to be exposed to the cruel reality the world has

to offer. A consequence of admitting child testimony is that the burden of proof falls heavily on

the shoulders of a child's memory recall. This leaving long lasting effects psychologically on a

child for not only the time being but for the rest of their lives. With the evidence presented of

high potential suggestibility and cognitive limitations, child testimony should not be admissible

in a court of law.
Child Testimony in Court 9
Child Testimony in Court 10

References

Goodman, G. S. (1984). The child witness: conclusions and future directions for research and

legal practice. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 157–175. https://doi-org.proxy-

mansfield.klnpa.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1984.tb01099.x

Goodman, G. S., & Reed, R. S. (1986). Age differences in eyewitness testimony. Law and

Human Behavior, 10(4), 317–332. https://doi-org.proxy-

mansfield.klnpa.org/10.1007/BF01047344

Howe, M. L., & Knott, L. M. (2015). The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: Lessons

from the past and their modern consequences. Memory, 23(5), 633–656. https://doi-

org.proxy-mansfield.klnpa.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1010709

Koenig, M. A., Clément, F., & Harris, P. L. (2004). Trust in Testimony. Psychological Science

(0956-7976), 15(10), 694–698. https://doi-org.proxy-mansfield.klnpa.org/10.1111/j.0956-

7976.2004.00742.x

Krähenbühl, S., & Blades, M. (2006). The effect of interviewing techniques on young children’s

responses to questions. Child: Care, Health & Development, 32(3), 321–331. https://doi-

org.proxy-mansfield.klnpa.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00608.x
Child Testimony in Court 11

Krähenbühl, S., Blades, M., & Eiser, C. (2009). The effect of repeated questioning on children’s

accuracy and consistency in eyewitness testimony. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14(2),

263–278. https://doi-org.proxy-mansfield.klnpa.org/10.1348/135532508X398549

Lampinen, J. M., & Smith, V. L. (1995). The incredible (and sometimes incredulous) child

witness: Child eyewitnesses’ sensitivity to source credibility cues. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 80(5), 621–627. https://doi-org.proxy-mansfield.klnpa.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.80.5.621

Luus, C. A. E., Turtle, J. W., & Wells, G. L. (1995). Child Eyewitnesses: Seeing Is Believing.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 317–326. https://doi-org.proxy-

mansfield.klnpa.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.2.317

Melinder, A., Goodman, G. S., Eilertsen, D. E., & Magnussen, S. (2004). Beliefs about Child

Witnesses: A Survey of Professionals. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(4), 347–365.

https://doi-org.proxy-mansfield.klnpa.org/10.1080/10683160310001618717

Whitehouse, W. G., Orne, E. C., & Dinges, D. F. (2010). Extreme cognitive interviewing: A

blueprint for false memories through imagination inflation. International Journal of

Child Testimony in Court 12

Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 58(3), 269–287. https://doi-org.proxy-

mansfield.klnpa.org/10.1080/00207141003760587

Wei, T. T. D. (1971). Piaget’s concept of classification: a comparative study of socially

disadvantaged and middle-class young children. Child Development, 42, 919–927.

Wyman, J., Foster, I., Lavoie, J., Tong, D., & Talwar, V. (2018). Detecting children’s false

allegations and recantations of a crime. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(6), 652–671.

https://doi-org.proxy-mansfield.klnpa.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1402018
Child Testimony in Court 13