Should a 3-year-old child's testimony to his teacher (on child abuse) be admitted in court?

"Statements by child witnesses present particular reliability risks due to children's susceptibility to particular modes of questioning, suggestion, and coaching," says a brief from the organization. "The unreliability of child-witness testimony is established not only by an extensive body of research but also by numerous wrongful convictions that were secured on the basis of child-witness testimony that subsequently proved untrue."


I don't think small children should have to face the defendants in court, but I do think that witness testimony, such as the day care provider's, needs to have a lot of supporting evidence to go with it.

reason. On which side do we allow "justice" to err? I surely don't know.

To not admit them into evidence might be sealing the kid's fate. If the step-dad is found innocent for lack of evidence, how do you not return the child to the family?

Wasnt that both spontaneous and wrong?

The tv trope shorthand for this is the 'I ran into a door'/'fell down the stairs' line coming from an abused person. Ie, the person is told to give a lie if asked about the injuries. If that's the case, it's in no way 'spontaneous'.

They need to discover exactly what the teacher might have said to the child in eliciting the words about the step-parent to see if those words were spontaneous or 'led'.

whenever anyone asked about my bruises or scrapes. I was ashamed that I was being abused, I thought it was my fault. Sometimes children will say that first because it feels too threatening to tell the truth, for a number of reasons.

and then get back to us and tell us if you still believe your statement.

That's the problem. It is incredibly easy to lead a small child to say what you expect them to say. The truth is quite malleable to a three-year-old. A story about what happened is just as valid as the reality. Even if the questions were not leading in the slightest, you can still get a wild tale from a toddler.

That's why there was a sudden epidemic of day care sexual abuse back in the 1980s(?). Day cares were closed; caretakers arrested. And each time it happened, more parents anxiously asked their children if any of the teachers ever touched them or took their clothes off, etc. Most of the charges were dropped and convictions overturned, once it became evident that it was more the result of mass hysteria transmitted to the children by adults.

When a child talks about something that could be considered abuse, it is suggestive of abuse and needs to be investigated. But other evidence needs to be established before anyone goes to prison.

... has NEVER been alone with a prosecutorial minion, i.e. "interrogated" without tapes the jury can see because it is well known that kids are easily coached.

With a child that young, what they say (to the teacher in this case) shortly after the incident will be far more reliable than what they might say months later.

How reliable is that?

And that's the problem. Youngsters' testimony's a can of worms.

1. Kids will often say what they think they need to say. Perhaps to protect a parent, possibly out of fear or confusion. Yeah, they're "lying," but they're not of age and it's hard for a kid that's three to consistently stand up to an adult or take sides against a caregiver s/he's bonded with. "I fell" is a lot better than "Daddy beat the crap out of me."

2. Memories are flexible and reconstructed every time you recall something. You don't usually remember words or details. You fill them in. They can be altered, adapted, revised, even planted or created. And that's with adults. You don't recall the original event, you recall the event as you last remembered it.

With kids it's very easy for this to happen. It happens with adults, but it's fairly common with kids. Even without manipulation.

The kid at first said he fell. Then the story changed. Did it change because mommy talked to him? Because the guy he's accusing now didn't give him something he wanted and the kid's being vindictive? Because some other adult asked and planted the idea in his head? It could go either way. But the veracity of that initial, more spontaneous claim can be evaluated. It's harder to evaluate how true the revised story is: You already know it's revised. Heck, that first story might already be revised from what happened.

Teachers make mistakes, as do all people, but at least that's a kind of corroboration as to what the kid said at a given time. The closer to the actual event, the better--it's why contemporaneous records matter in law suits. Even if we assume that a 3-year-old really can distinguish clearly between saying the truth and saying things that aren't true (but which he might sincerely believe to be true).

That little whining punk about his rights to confront and verbally bully the tiny child he has already pummeled?

I hate to share the air with some dreadful assholes.

Keep his fists off a babies face and we're cool.

His entire future was lost when he can't keep his hands from injuring a child.

Fuck off asshole.

Here's what your sort of presupposing of guilt can do:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/08/04/30-years-later-key-figures-reflect-on-mcmartin-child-abuse-case/

Shame on you.

Sell that horseshit someplace else.

What was with that leap of assumption?

The Wenatchee Witch Hunt of 1994-95.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenatchee_child_abuse_prosecutions

the "manhate" comment was more offensive, imho.

Yeah.

That manhate comment sent me full fang.

On Sun Mar 29, 2015, 09:06 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Manhate?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6431917

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Is this what passes for discussion on this forum these days? "Fuck off asshole."

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 29, 2015, 09:14 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: sometimes the response is necessary, to the absolute insulting comment. Leave it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Everything up until the part where the poster writes the last line is within bounds. It is telling someone to "fuck off" and calling them an asshole that is against the rules on DU
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I like this poster, but I always vote to hide personal attacks like this. I do understand the emotion that probably caused it however.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: over the line
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not sure who "fuck off asshole" is directed at. The stepdad in the OP, or 99Forever?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be interesting to hear from Juror #1 who voted to leave it alone and basically said the person had it coming, Juror #2 and #3 voted to leave it with no explanation.

The person alerted on had 2 hides already in the past 90 days and narrowly averted a 3rd.

Just kidding!

Let me put it this way, really nothing surprises me that much when it comes to DU juries. I think they are what they are.

... if it's aimed at a man.

"Some animals are more equal than others."- George Orwell in Animal Farm

I always try to leave a explanation of my vote. It is disappointing that many people will serve on a jury and don't bother to share the justification of their vote.

Seems the honorable thing to do. But then, quite clearly, there are some people who have no honor or scruples.

Commenting is optional.

I voted to hide and left my explanation.

I understand the emotion of the poster who was alerted on, but I always vote to hide personal attacks.

even where it doesn't exist. They just have an axe to grind.

CEOS of major corporations, 99 percent of the richest people in the world, police, and all state structures of power makes men so oppressed.

Neither the child abuser nor you represent all men, and I would imagine a good many men find the association quite insulting.

People are wrongly accused all the time. That's why there are trials: to establish guilt, or not.

But maybe you'd like to skip the trial and rally up a lynch mob instead.

I would imagine that the teacher's testimony was about what the child said, rather than about what really happened to the child.

To that end, the "evidence" is what was said to the teacher (i.e., what the teacher observed), so the teacher is the witness to be confronted, not the child.

The words of a witness.

If the teacher were asked "what happened to the child on that day to cause the bruises?" then the answer would be hearsay.

If the teacher were asked "what did the child tell you?" then that answer would be testimony.

I would consider it child abuse to put a 3 year old in a courtroom.

Get a judge, a child psychologist, the defense, and the prosecution to agree on a set of neutral questions for the child psychologist to ask the 3 year old, videotape his testimony, and play that in court.

Debate the evidence that a bruise could be from a fall.

But you don't get to swear in a damn infant and badger them on a witness stand.

That is insane.

But the accused can't?

Your claim that the defendant just want to bully the child is therefore unfounded:

Justice Kennedy asked what defense thought of interviewing the child in a clinical, theurapeutic setting as described by Erich. Defense was ok with it. :

Defense Lawyer (page 28):

"and if proper findings
14 were made taken outside of a courtroom, perhaps even
15 through an expert, I think a very strong argument could
16 be made, if it were necessary to be made to this Court
17 or any other, that if by interviewing the child outside
18 of a courtroom in a more therapeutic setting is more
19 likely to be able to enable the child to tell his story
20 and to answer questions, then that's what confrontation
21 is all about."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-1352_o7jq.pdf

And that is the way it is done routinely, I believe. Although sometimes I think the child meets with the judge, although maybe not a child that young.

Given that you believe only a child psychologist is to be trusted.

You seem to agree with the opinion that the child's testimony to the teacher should not be evidence. Right?

a teacher's job is different than a psychologist's, especially one trained to work with kids for the justice system. The teacher could, completely innocently, say something that 'led' the child to change how he/she discussed getting bruised. It's like when you have 'double blind' experiments - in those cases, during the experiment, even the researchers don't know which test subjects are the 'control' and which are the experimental group, because if they did, they might subconsciously do things to alter the outcomes. A teacher, like a health care worker, is a mandatory reporter of child abuse, and might be 'looking' for such abuse, and thus be more likely to find it, whether or not it's there. That's why you want a specially trained third party without a stake in the outcome to try and find out the truth.

Child abuse sucks, but this is straightforward. We shouldn't be convicted of crimes based on what someone privately tells a third party - particularly when that someone is determined to be incompetent to testify.

This whole case hinges on the idea that the boy was competent to privately give accurate information to the teacher (who then accurately recounts that information for the court), but not to the court directly. If nothing else, the boy isn't available to hear if the teacher is accurately testifying.

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Was wondering how long it'd take a MRA to pop out of the woodwork and start railing on people who didn't support this man.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Mar 29, 2015, 12:37 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: "Manhate"
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The use of "Man-hater" is going over the top.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Easy hide. MRAs and their privilege suck.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see any TOS violation
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

My answer is yes. The reliability can be questioned in court and evaluated by jurors.

I'm a teacher, not a lawyer. I only have opinions to offer.

My pertinent opinions:

While the accused may have a right to face the accuser, the victim should also have the right not to be confronted, manipulated, or bullied by the abuser...regardless of age.

Children are much more easily influenced and damaged...and research says they are unreliable. When a child's testimony is needed in court, it can be provided by video, and obtained by professional psychologists; lawyers listening in can provide the questions.

A three yo is too young.

A teacher can report what was said and observed without offering interpretation. Very often, teachers fulfill their legal and moral obligation to report suspected abuse and/or neglect, but nothing ever comes of it. Visits and investigations by DHS generally don't turn up evidence of abuse unless it happens right in front of investigators or there are physical marks. That leaves a whole world of hidden abuse that never gets addressed. Children are often left in abusive and/or neglectful situations much too long, causing long-term damage.

Children have fewer rights than their parents, who are given the benefit of the doubt repeatedly. I understand the reasons why. I'm not suggesting we take children's words over their parents'; I'm saying that we have many, many, many children out there who need help but don't get it because our systems are inadequate and, in too many cases, our hands are tied.

I have these kids in my classroom every year. This month, a student and younger sibling, 7 years old, had to face their father in court and testify to his sexual abuse in the process of removing his parental right to unsupervised visitations. They are afraid of him. Last year, another student, an 11 yo, had to testify to, not only his own abuse, but the abuse of other children he'd witnessed in his home. Sitting on the stand with the abuser staring them down while they do so is traumatizing, to say the least.

Clearly, the testimony of older children is allowed in court. Three years old? If admitted at all, it should be by video, live-streamed or not, where the child is in a protected environment.

by the fact that we have procedures for young children to testify where they are not directly facing the accused (whether by CTC or a screen or what have you).

The idea that this was about either having the child testify in the physical presence of the accused or not testify at all is false.

So the idea that the judge declared the three year old incompetent to testify is somewhat problematic to me, because there should be a path by which we can ask this child questions in the least manipulative way possible.

whether or not research supports that, or whether or not it's developmentally appropriate to question a 3 yo?

It is a lot like a murder trial, thankfully this didn't turn into one. The victim tells a third party what the defendant told her. It's part of the evidence. The three year old could be treated as an unavailable witness.

I had a scratch on my face one day. I had absolutely no idea how it got there - I had probably scratched myself on the face, or brushed against a tree branch or something.

A teacher and teacher's aide took me aside and started questioning me about it. They WOULD NOT accept "I don't know" as an explanation. I was not released from questioning until I had named someone who had scratched me, and the scenario in which it had happened. Which was totally fabricated on my part.

I just found out that three of the 3-year-old siblings are currently removed from their mother's custody due to her abuse:

p. 32 (Defense lawyer speaking):

"Again, remember that LP's three older siblings had all been removed from the home already for his mother's abuse and neglect."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-1352_o7jq.pdf


The plot thickens.­­