Abstract
Undergraduates (N = 385) watched a 2‐hr, videotaped, mock trial of a child sexual abuse case. The child testified in open court, with a barrier between the child and the defendant, or via closed circuit television. Students enacted the role of a juror, sibling of the defendant, or sibling of the mother of the victim. The judge either did or did not warn jurors that the barrier or video should not be considered evidence of the defendant's guilt. Use of the barrier or video did not influence guilty votes, the credibility of witnesses, nor the perceived fairness of the trial for jurors. Siblings of the defendant perceived these procedures to be biased and their use as unfair. Increased publicity about the use of barriers and closed‐circuit television when children testify is recommended to reduce objections to these procedures.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
