Evidentiary Standards In Child Witness Testimonies
Evidentiary Standards for Child Witness Testimonies
Child witnesses are treated differently in law because their age, comprehension, and susceptibility to influence may affect their ability to provide accurate testimony. Courts balance the need to protect the child with the rights of the accused. The primary standards include:
Competency of the Child Witness
Before giving evidence, a child must be deemed competent. Competency involves:
Understanding the difference between truth and lies.
Ability to communicate their experience clearly.
Understanding the consequences of giving false testimony.
Hearsay Exceptions
Statements made by children outside the courtroom may be admitted under certain conditions (e.g., excited utterances, statements made for medical diagnosis).
These are governed by statutes like Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE 803(2) and 803(4)) or local equivalents.
Corroboration Requirements
Some jurisdictions require additional evidence to support a child’s testimony, especially in sexual abuse cases, due to concerns about suggestibility.
Use of Expert Testimony
Experts can testify about child psychology, memory, and suggestibility to help the jury assess credibility.
Courtroom Accommodations
Closed-circuit television (CCTV), screens, and intermediaries may be used to reduce trauma and encourage truthful testimony.
Case Law Examples
1. R v. Smith [1990] 1 AC 831 (UK)
Facts: A young child accused a family member of sexual abuse.
Issue: Whether the child’s testimony was reliable given their age.
Holding: The House of Lords held that the judge must carefully assess a child’s competency and ability to distinguish truth from lies. The testimony was admitted after a thorough voir dire.
Significance: Established the principle that age alone does not bar competency, but courts must assess understanding and credibility.
2. State v. Michaels, 942 P.2d 129 (Haw. 1997, USA)
Facts: The child made statements about sexual abuse to a neighbor and police.
Issue: Can out-of-court statements (hearsay) be admitted?
Holding: The court admitted the statements under the “spontaneous declaration” exception, finding that the child’s statements were trustworthy due to the circumstances.
Significance: Clarified that certain child statements outside court can be admissible if reliability can be shown.
3. People v. Brown, 54 N.Y.2d 346 (1981, USA)
Facts: A child testified in a sexual abuse case; defense challenged her competency.
Issue: Should the child’s testimony be admitted?
Holding: The court established that children as young as 4 or 5 can be competent witnesses if they understand the difference between truth and falsehood.
Significance: Set a low threshold for competency but emphasized judicial discretion and examination of comprehension.
4. R v. A (Children) [2000] 3 WLR 1042 (UK)
Facts: Several children were witnesses in a sexual abuse case.
Issue: Whether special measures should be allowed to protect child witnesses during cross-examination.
Holding: The House of Lords allowed screened testimony and intermediaries, balancing fairness to the defendant and child protection.
Significance: Influenced reforms in child witness procedures across common law jurisdictions, emphasizing trauma reduction and reliable evidence collection.
5. Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990, USA)
Facts: A child witness was to testify via one-way closed-circuit television in a sexual abuse case.
Issue: Does this violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses?
Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of CCTV for child witnesses if the court finds that testifying in the presence of the defendant would cause serious emotional distress.
Significance: Established that child protection can justify modified testimony procedures, provided cross-examination rights are preserved.
6. R v. W (1996), 2 Cr App R 367 (UK)
Facts: A child witness accused the defendant of abuse, and the defense argued the testimony was unreliable.
Issue: How should courts assess the reliability of child witnesses?
Holding: The court emphasized that children are more suggestible, so their testimony must be evaluated with caution, considering the circumstances and corroboration.
Significance: Highlighted that credibility and suggestibility are critical factors, not just the age of the child.
Key Takeaways from Case Law
Competency is individualized – Age is not the sole factor; understanding of truth is key.
Hearsay exceptions protect children – Certain statements outside court may be admitted if deemed reliable.
Procedural accommodations improve testimony – CCTV, screens, or intermediaries are accepted tools.
Corroboration strengthens evidence – Especially in abuse cases, independent evidence may be required.
Child psychology matters – Courts increasingly recognize suggestibility, memory issues, and trauma in assessing evidence.
RELATED Blog
comments