TY - JOUR
T1 - ‘This incident happened when there were 10 people in the house?’ Exploring a framework to categorize defense attorneys’ plausibility questioning in CSA trials
AU - St. George, Suzanne
AU - Denne, Emily
AU - Stolzenberg, Stacia N.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - While researchers find that attorneys in CSA trials dedicate substantial time to questioning children about the plausibility of their reports, we know of no study to date that has assessed the types of plausibility issues attorneys raise, the relative frequency of different types, or if attorneys vary their plausibility questioning depending on case characteristics. In the current study we explored these questions. Guided by the story model of jury decision-making, we proposed defense attorneys would raise plausibility issues by (1) highlighting jurors’ misconceptions about CSA dynamics; (2) highlighting confusing or implausible statements made by the child; and (3) offering alternative explanations for events. We conducted a content analysis of the cross-examinations of 134 children aged 5–17 testifying about alleged CSA. We found that attorneys raised all three proposed types of plausibility questioning, and they varied their plausibility questioning somewhat by age, severity, child-defendant relationship, and the number of victims in the case. Attorneys’ preferred strategy was to highlight jurors’ misconceptions about CSA. Prosecutors should address jurors’ misconceptions preemptively in direct examinations of children or through expert testimony. Beyond implications for courtroom practices, our plausibility framework may apply to plausibility concerns raised in other crime types, something researchers should explore.
AB - While researchers find that attorneys in CSA trials dedicate substantial time to questioning children about the plausibility of their reports, we know of no study to date that has assessed the types of plausibility issues attorneys raise, the relative frequency of different types, or if attorneys vary their plausibility questioning depending on case characteristics. In the current study we explored these questions. Guided by the story model of jury decision-making, we proposed defense attorneys would raise plausibility issues by (1) highlighting jurors’ misconceptions about CSA dynamics; (2) highlighting confusing or implausible statements made by the child; and (3) offering alternative explanations for events. We conducted a content analysis of the cross-examinations of 134 children aged 5–17 testifying about alleged CSA. We found that attorneys raised all three proposed types of plausibility questioning, and they varied their plausibility questioning somewhat by age, severity, child-defendant relationship, and the number of victims in the case. Attorneys’ preferred strategy was to highlight jurors’ misconceptions about CSA. Prosecutors should address jurors’ misconceptions preemptively in direct examinations of children or through expert testimony. Beyond implications for courtroom practices, our plausibility framework may apply to plausibility concerns raised in other crime types, something researchers should explore.
KW - attorney questioning
KW - child sexual abuse
KW - content analysis
KW - plausibility
KW - story model of jury decision-making
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85135178005&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85135178005&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/1068316X.2022.2104277
DO - 10.1080/1068316X.2022.2104277
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85135178005
SN - 1068-316X
JO - Psychology, Crime and Law
JF - Psychology, Crime and Law
ER -