Where there’s smoke, there’s fire: The effect of truncated testimony on juror decision making

Abstract

Many countries around the world have modified their legislation to allow child complainants of abuse to present their evidence-in-chief via pre-recorded videotape, or through closed-circuit-television (CCTV), rather than through live testimony, which has been shown to be stressful for children. With this modification, many countries also allow for childrens’ videotaped evidence to be truncated for relevance or admissibility purposes. In the two experiments, we examined whether truncating testimony influenced how mock jurors rated the credibility of a 6-year-old child complainant when her testimony contained the primary core allegation only, or when the testimony was presented with either one or two additional—but less plausible— allegations. We also examined how mock jurors rated the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Contrary to what we predicted, we found that participants believed the child’s core allegation, regardless of whether or not it was presented with additional less plausible allegations. Moreover, jurors who read the transcripts containing multiple allegations of abuse were more likely to find the defendant guilty of the core allegation than were jurors who read the core allegation only. These findings suggest that the truncation of testimony may affect the outcome of a trial; however, more research is needed on the effects of truncated testimony on juror decision-making as we continue to try to make the criminal justice system as fair as possible for all of those involved.