Abstract
While jurors struggle with determining any witnesses’ credibility, an even more arduous task is determining the credibility of a child victim in a sexual assault case. Due to developmental immaturity, children lack important recall and communication skills, and the well-established procedures of direct and cross examination are ineffective at producing accurate and complete trial testimony. Despite the adversarial system being proven ineffective in these contexts, American courts remain hesitant to admit expert testimony based on established psychology tools. Specifically, courts have questioned the application of Statement Validity Assessments (“SVAs”), to assist jurors in evaluating witness credibility, as they believe such testimony is unreliable and invades the province of the jury. However, using SVAs to assist jurors in evaluating witness credibility is not a radical or new concept, with inquisitorial and some adversarial criminal justice systems outside the United States using them for decades. These expert witnesses conduct SVAs on child witnesses’ pretrial allegations to form an opinion as to the veracity of the witnesses’ truthfulness in those statements and testify to the results in court.
Included in
Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Evidence Commons
