Criminal Trials Investigating Claims of Child Sexual Abuse: Impeaching Children through Prior Inconsistent Statements

• In Event: Prosecutorial Practices in Cases Involving Minors, Emerging Adults, and Specialized Offenders

Abstract

Attorneys may discredit witnesses through impeachment, challenging credibility on prior inconsistent statements. In cases of child sexual abuse, children’s credibility is especially relevant, as their testimony is often the only evidence. The present study examined criminal trial testimonies of 120 5- 12-year-olds alleging child sexual abuse. All questions about prior statements were examined and coded reliably. Attorneys commonly impeached children through inquiries about prior inconsistent statements, with impeachment happening in approximately half of the cases, occurring on average 3 times when attorneys decided to use that technique. Children were most often asked about what they stated in preliminary hearings, and attorneys paraphrased prior statements nearly half of the time. Attorneys most commonly challenged children about their prior interactions with suspects, attacking the particulars of abuse including clothing/body placement during abuse, as well as the date, time of day, sequencing, frequency, and location of abuse. When challenged, children commonly complied with the inconsistency, rarely resisting. Reasons of inconsistency were rarely asked for, but when given, children most commonly described an inability to remember. The present findings suggest that attorneys may be inappropriately challenging children, preventing successful prosecution by attacking credibility on realms that are unrealistic when dealing with children as witnesses.

Authors

• Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Arizona State University

• Samantha J. Andrews, University of Cambridge

• Stephanie Morse, Arizona State University

• Thomas D. Lyon, University of Southern California