Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Why Hearsay Testimony May Be a Necessary Evil in Child Sexual Abuse Cases

Abstract

ABSTRACT In a criminal case where a child is the alleged victim, the legal system has grappled with the issue of whether he or she should be subjected to testifying on the stand or whether “hearsay testimony” (i.e., testimony that is provided by a person who has interviewed the child, rather than the child himself or herself) is a reliable alternative. In essence, the legal system has been contending with choosing the lesser of two evils. This commentary addresses the mainstay criticisms against hearsay testimony and then discusses the problems that arise when children testify in court. In the first section of the commentary, it is argued that the emotional damage resulting from allowing a child to testify far outweighs any criticism of hearsay testimony. Additionally, research shows that a child's ability to accurately recall details declines more quickly than that of an adult, thus raising concerns about unreliable testimony. In the end, it is argued, that allowing hearsay testimony would not only reduce the emotional distress that a child undergoes but also provide a more reliable recollection. While we acknowledge that hearsay testimony does have its disadvantages, we believe that, by creating standards in which to allow it, hearsay testimony can be a credible way to translate the information ensuring the defendant's right to a fair trial.