TASK 5 – CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT IN
COURT: DO CHILDREN LIE?
HOW CAN WE EVALUATE WHETHER A CHILD’S TESTIMONY IS TRUE?
COURT EVALUATIONS OF YOUNG CHILDREN’S TESTIMONY IN CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE (CSA) CASES
(ERNBERG ET AL.)
Criteria-Based Consists of a number of criteria suggested to occur more frequently in
Content Analysis truthful than deceptive statements (e.g., unexpected details, external
(CBCA) relations)
Carried out as part of statement validity assessment
Reality Consists of criteria to discern whether one’s memory stems form
monitoring (RM) external OR internal source
Both CBCA & RM have success rate around 70% in discriminating between truthful &
deceptive statements
Both are more successful in singling out truthful statements than deceptive ones
Rarely used in practice
Sweden – assessment of testimonies not regulated by law
Supreme Court can advise on such matters in legal precedents – they are not binding
o Criteria come without training / guidelines, no reference points for criteria
o Unclear by what comparison testimony should be e.g., rich in detail
o Precedents don’t include clear definitions of concepts
o Criteria do not derive from research BUT experience in criminal cases varying
degree of scientific support
Concern: children’s testimonies may be held to standards of adults don’t comply
with their witness ability
Children as young as can give reliable testimony
This study: investigates criteria used by courts to assess testimony given by young
children in CSA cases
Methods Collected verdicts issued by Swedish Courts involving complainants < 7
years during abuse
70 cases, involving 100 complainants were identified
Results District Convicted defendant on at least 1 charge of abuse in 80% of cases
Courts Sig. relation between corroborative strength of evidence &
outcome in court
96% of cases with strong corroborative evidence resulted in
conviction
Court was more likely to apply Supreme Court criteria in cases
, with evidence of LOW corroborative value
Courts of 45 of 100 complainants had their cases tried in Courts of Appeal
Appeal 62% the defendant was convicted on at least 1 charge of abuse
80% of cases Court of Appeal came to same conclusion as
District Courts
DISCUSSION
Supreme Court criteria used to assess young children’s testimony
At least 1 criterion applied to assess testimony in 66% of District Court & 33% of Court of
Appeal cases
Most frequently used criterion: richness in detail (met in 66% of assessments)
o Used against reliability of testimony in almost halve the cases which didn’t meet
criterion
o Children have limited ability to provide detailed testimony about CSA – still
most cases met criterion
Could indicate that prosecuted cases involved children capable of giving
detailed testimony
Judges may take children’s age into account in testimonial assessment
2 nd
most used criterion: whether testimony was spontaneous or not
o Can be problematic – many children don’t disclose CSA spontaneously
Length criterion – affected reliability of testimony negatively each time it wasn’t
fulfilled
20% of cases – Court of Appeal changed verdict
Most common reason – disagreement regarding complainant’s testimony
FINDINGS CONFIRM CONCERNS THAT CRITERIA ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT ARE USED IN EVALUATION OF
YOUNG CHILDREN’S TESTIMONY.
LIMITATIONS
Study is dependent on what was reported by judges in the verdict might not reflect
reality
Details from testimony that influenced judge’s decision-making might have gone
unreported
CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT IN CSA INVESTIGATIONS: A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS (MELKMAN & ZUR)
No reliable method that can accurately distinguish between truthful & false statements
Several components of CBCA have been validated – BUT on average 1/3 of judgements are
incorrect
Professionals are often unable to distinguish between truthful & deceptive events
Incorrect assessments (in both directions) can have various negative consequences
COURT: DO CHILDREN LIE?
HOW CAN WE EVALUATE WHETHER A CHILD’S TESTIMONY IS TRUE?
COURT EVALUATIONS OF YOUNG CHILDREN’S TESTIMONY IN CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE (CSA) CASES
(ERNBERG ET AL.)
Criteria-Based Consists of a number of criteria suggested to occur more frequently in
Content Analysis truthful than deceptive statements (e.g., unexpected details, external
(CBCA) relations)
Carried out as part of statement validity assessment
Reality Consists of criteria to discern whether one’s memory stems form
monitoring (RM) external OR internal source
Both CBCA & RM have success rate around 70% in discriminating between truthful &
deceptive statements
Both are more successful in singling out truthful statements than deceptive ones
Rarely used in practice
Sweden – assessment of testimonies not regulated by law
Supreme Court can advise on such matters in legal precedents – they are not binding
o Criteria come without training / guidelines, no reference points for criteria
o Unclear by what comparison testimony should be e.g., rich in detail
o Precedents don’t include clear definitions of concepts
o Criteria do not derive from research BUT experience in criminal cases varying
degree of scientific support
Concern: children’s testimonies may be held to standards of adults don’t comply
with their witness ability
Children as young as can give reliable testimony
This study: investigates criteria used by courts to assess testimony given by young
children in CSA cases
Methods Collected verdicts issued by Swedish Courts involving complainants < 7
years during abuse
70 cases, involving 100 complainants were identified
Results District Convicted defendant on at least 1 charge of abuse in 80% of cases
Courts Sig. relation between corroborative strength of evidence &
outcome in court
96% of cases with strong corroborative evidence resulted in
conviction
Court was more likely to apply Supreme Court criteria in cases
, with evidence of LOW corroborative value
Courts of 45 of 100 complainants had their cases tried in Courts of Appeal
Appeal 62% the defendant was convicted on at least 1 charge of abuse
80% of cases Court of Appeal came to same conclusion as
District Courts
DISCUSSION
Supreme Court criteria used to assess young children’s testimony
At least 1 criterion applied to assess testimony in 66% of District Court & 33% of Court of
Appeal cases
Most frequently used criterion: richness in detail (met in 66% of assessments)
o Used against reliability of testimony in almost halve the cases which didn’t meet
criterion
o Children have limited ability to provide detailed testimony about CSA – still
most cases met criterion
Could indicate that prosecuted cases involved children capable of giving
detailed testimony
Judges may take children’s age into account in testimonial assessment
2 nd
most used criterion: whether testimony was spontaneous or not
o Can be problematic – many children don’t disclose CSA spontaneously
Length criterion – affected reliability of testimony negatively each time it wasn’t
fulfilled
20% of cases – Court of Appeal changed verdict
Most common reason – disagreement regarding complainant’s testimony
FINDINGS CONFIRM CONCERNS THAT CRITERIA ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT ARE USED IN EVALUATION OF
YOUNG CHILDREN’S TESTIMONY.
LIMITATIONS
Study is dependent on what was reported by judges in the verdict might not reflect
reality
Details from testimony that influenced judge’s decision-making might have gone
unreported
CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT IN CSA INVESTIGATIONS: A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS (MELKMAN & ZUR)
No reliable method that can accurately distinguish between truthful & false statements
Several components of CBCA have been validated – BUT on average 1/3 of judgements are
incorrect
Professionals are often unable to distinguish between truthful & deceptive events
Incorrect assessments (in both directions) can have various negative consequences
