Hearsay Testimony Research Articles

Doctrine of Res Gestae: a Critical Analysis

The Doctrine of Res Gestae is embodied in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 and, the doctrine is an exception to the hearsay clause, however, in a court of law, hearsay testimony is not admissible. It is critical to analyze what constitutes a transaction, where it starts and ends, and it is not a res gestae if the given facts are unable to connect themselves to the prime transaction resulting in inadmissibility. If a comment is made under the burden of excitement, then it is considered admissible in the eyes of the court because it's all part of the same transaction. The ambiguity of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 gives it the power. Section 6 is admissible only if the testimony is established to be part of the same transaction, however, the Court must determine if it is valid or not.

Juror perceptions of excited utterance hearsay testimony in an adult sexual assault case

ABSTRACT This study utilized a 4 (testimony condition) × 2 (participant gender) between-participants design to investigate how mock jurors react to hearsay testimony in an adult sexual assault case. Participants included 211 community members (106 female, 105 male). Mock jurors read a trial summary involving an adult sexual assault case that varied only in the Prosecution’s primary witness featuring either victim testimony, brief-hearsay testimony (simply reporting that the crime occurred), elaborate-hearsay testimony (describing the crime at a similar length as the victim), or a control condition. Consistent with expectations, hearsay and victim testimony yielded guilty verdict rates comparable to each other and higher than that of the control condition. Additionally, victim credibility mediated the relationship, such that participants were more likely to render a guilty verdict if they perceived the victim as more credible. The results of this experiment will be discussed in terms of how rape cases are prosecuted.

Specifics of Use of Hearsay Testimony as Evidence under Ukrainian and Foreign Criminal Procedure Laws

A. Panova writes about the array of questions related to testimony from the use of other people’s words, formed during the proofing in criminal procedure in Ukraine and other countries. The author has made justifiable conclusions that, according to the norms of Ukrainian criminal procedure, testimonies form the use of other people’s words can be treated as inadmissible, unless parties involved in criminal proceedings agree to use such evidence. A. Panova apraksta jautājumu loku, kas ir saistīts ar liecību, atsaucoties uz citu cilvēku vārdiem, izmantošanas īpatnībām Ukrainas un ārvalstu kriminālprocesos. Autore pamatoti secina, ka atbilstīgi Ukrainas kriminālprocesa tiesību normām liecības, atsaucoties uz citu cilvēku vārdiem, var tikt atzītas par nepieļaujamām, izņemot gadījumus, ja kriminālprocesā iesaistītās puses piekrīt šī pierādījuma izmantošanai.

Educative Expert Testimony: A One-Two Punch Can Affect Jurors' Decisions

The present research examined whether different types of educative expert testimony can increase mock jurors' knowledge of problems associated with hearsay witnesses and decrease guilty verdicts. Studies 1 (N = 304 college students) and 2 (N = 196 college students) varied the length and types of expert testimony in a trial transcript. While all types of expert testimony did inform mock jurors' knowledge, guilty verdicts decreased when multiple problems with hearsay were presented. The length of the testimony had no effect on verdict. The results suggest that experts who present multiple problems with hearsay testimony are more likely to impact guilty decisions than is no expert or an expert who presents only one problem.

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

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.

Hearsay Testimony: Protecting the Needs of Children at the Expense of the Defendant's Right to a Fair Trial

ABSTRACT Hearsay testimony occurs when an out-of-court statement is made by the witness and retold in court by another person. Hearsay testimony is heard in cases of child sexual abuse (CSA). In this paper, we argue that the use of hearsay testimony, in its current format, should be inadmissible in cases of CSA because it violates the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to confront their accuser. Hearsay testimony may also be less reliable than testimony from the victim. Finally, we argue, hearsay testimony may have undue influences on jurors' decisions and thus compromise the rights of the Defendant.

The effects of judicial admonitions on hearsay evidence

Using a simulated civil case, this experiment investigated whether mock jurors: (a) are able to disregard hearsay evidence when admonished to do so, (b) experience psychological reactance and “backfire effects” in proportion to the strength of judicial admonition instructing them to disregard hearsay evidence, and (c) are able to recognize and disregard hearsay evidence without judicial instructions. Results indicate that jurors were unable to disregard inadmissible hearsay testimony in some legal decisions regardless of whether there were judicial instructions to do so. Jurors exhibited backfire effects paying more attention to inadmissible hearsay evidence when they were strongly instructed to disregard it. More specifically, juror backfire effects were evident in both their confidence in their liability verdicts and in their punitive damage awards. The legal and policy implications of these findings are discussed.

When Does Quality Count?: Perceptions of Hearsay Testimony About Child Sexual Abuse Interviews.

This study assessed how the quality of a sexual abuse investigative interview with a child and the age of the child influence jurors' reactions to either the original interview with the child or to testimony by an adult hearsay witness (the interviewer). Participants (N = 360) were randomly assigned to 1 of 12 conditions in a 2 (type of testimony: hearsay testimony vs. child interview) x 3 (interview quality: poor, typical, or good) x 2 (age of the child: 4 years old vs. 10 years old) factorial design. Participants reached individual verdicts, answered a series of questions, and then deliberated in a group with five other participants. As predicted, jurors in the child interview conditions were more likely to find the defendant guilty if they read the good interview than if they read either the poor or the typical interview, but in the hearsay conditions verdicts did not significantly differ by interview quality. These findings suggest that there is a significant loss of information when the testimony of a hearsay witness is used in place of the actual interview with the child, and call into question the appropriateness of admitting hearsay testimony by interviewers.

Child Witness Policy: Law Interfacing with Social Science

Dorothy F. Marsil (*) Jean Montoya (**) David Ross (***) Louise Graham (****) I INTRODUCTION The number of children testifying in court has posed serious practical and legal problems for the judicial system. One problem confronting the courts is how to protect children from experiencing the psychological trauma resulting from a face-to-face confrontation with a defendant who may have physically harmed the child or threatened future harm to the child. Another concern is that this trauma may impair children's memory performance and their willingness to disclose the truth. In response to these concerns, child witness innovations proliferated throughout the United States in the 1980s and 1990s. (1) Among the innovations were: placing a screen between child witnesses and the defendant during children's testimony; (2) transmitting children's testimony into the courtroom by closed-circuit television; (3) and admitting children's otherwise inadmissible hearsay, (4) including children's videotaped interviews. (5) These innovations spawned a fair amount of appellate litigation regarding their constitutionality . Much of the litigation focused on whether a given innovation violated the Confrontation Clause, (6) but questions about due process arose as well. Court decisions regarding the constitutionality of child witness innovations rest on a number of assumptions that are subject to empirical testing. This article examines many of these assumptions and evaluates whether they are supported by social science evidence. Part II of the article examines the use of shielding procedures in child sexual abuse prosecutions. It begins by exploring the Supreme Court's analysis of state laws providing protection by shielding the child witness from the defendant. Next, it explores various questions: Do child witnesses need protection from confrontational stress? Does shielding prejudice the defendant? Does it impact juror perception of the proceedings' fairness? Does shielding impact juror perception of the child witness? How reliable is children's shielded testimony? Does shielding impair juror ability to detect deception in the child witness? Part III examines the use of hearsay testimony in child sexual abuse prosecutions. As with Part II, it begins by painting a picture of the legal landscape. Specifically, it considers the evidentiary and constitutional implications of using hearsay when children are witnesses. Part III then addresses various questions: Does admitting hearsay testimony protect the child witness? Does admitting hearsay testimony prejudice the defendant? How reliable is hearsay testimony offered in trials involving child witnesses? How accurate are the hearsay witnesses? Are they able to reconstruct details of their out-of-court exchange with the child witness? Does the eyewitness report deteriorate as it is transmitted down the hearsay chain from the child to the hearsay witness? Part IV concludes the article. It highlights the insights gained from the interface of law and social science and makes suggestions for legal practice and future social science research. II CHILDREN'S SHIELDED TESTIMONY Using shielding procedures is distinct from admitting hearsay statements. With shielding procedures, the child's view of the defendant is obstructed during the child's testimony at trial. When a screen is used, the child testifies from behind a screen placed between the child and the defendant. When one-way closed-circuit television is used, the child testifies from a separate testimonial room, and the child's testimony is transmitted into the courtroom where the defendant, jury, and judge are able to view the testimony. (7) In either case, the child witness testifies under oath and is subject to cross-examination. In contrast, when hearsay is admitted in lieu of the child's testimony, not only does the child avoid physical confrontation with the defendant, but the child witness is also not subject to cross-examination, because the prosecution relies on the testimony of a hearsay witness who reports the child's out-of-court statements. …

The believability of children and their interviewers' hearsay testimony: when less is more.

Hearsay testimony from children's interviewers is increasingly common in sexual abuse trials, but little is known about its effects on juries. In 2 studies, the authors examined college students' perceptions of 3 types of hearsay testimony (an actual interview with a child or an adult interviewer providing either the gist of what that child had said or a verbatim account of the interview). Interviewers were rated as more accurate and truthful than the children. The interview was rated as higher quality, and children's statements, including their false statements, were sometimes rated as more believable in the interviewer gist hearsay condition. Mock jurors reacted differently to various types of hearsay testimony, and interviewer gist testimony may favor a child's case.

The believability of children and their interviewer's hearsay testimony: When less is more.

The believability of children and their interviewer's hearsay testimony: When less is more.

The reliability of hearsay testimony: How well do interviewers recall their interviews with children?

The reliability of hearsay testimony: How well do interviewers recall their interviews with children?

Foreword: Hearsay testimony in trials involving child witnesses.

Foreword: Hearsay testimony in trials involving child witnesses.

Foreword: Hearsay testimony in trials involving child witnesses.

Foreword: Hearsay testimony in trials involving child witnesses.

The impact of hearsay testimony on conviction rates in trials of child sexual abuse: Toward balancing the rights of defendants and child witnesses.

The impact of hearsay testimony on conviction rates in trials of child sexual abuse: Toward balancing the rights of defendants and child witnesses.

The reliability of hearsay testimony: How well do interviewers recall their interviews with children?

The reliability of hearsay testimony: How well do interviewers recall their interviews with children?

The impact of hearsay testimony on conviction rates in trials of child sexual abuse: Toward balancing the rights of defendants and child witnesses.

The impact of hearsay testimony on conviction rates in trials of child sexual abuse: Toward balancing the rights of defendants and child witnesses.

Jurors' use of hearsay evidence: The effects of type and timing of instructions.

To examine the effects of curative judicial instructions on jurors' perceptions of hearsay testimony, mock jurors (N = 180) were exposed to one of six versions of a trial that included proprosecution hearsay evidence accompanied by either disregard or limiting instructions, presented either immediately after the hearsay, at the end of the trial, or at both of these times. Also included were control conditions in which (1) the information was presented as nonhearsay (first-hand), (2) no hearsay was presented, or (3) the hearsay was presented without instructions. Results indicated that neither the hearsay nor the instructions, regardless of their form or timing, affected verdicts. In fact, findings revealed that participants may have disregarded the hearsay regardless of instructions heard. There was some evidence to suggest, however, that evaluations of other admissible evidence presented by the hearsay witness were negatively affected.

The believability of hearsay testimony in a child sexual assault trial.

Two experiments investigated how mock jurors react to hearsay testimony in a case involving child sexual assault. Participants read fictional criminal trial summary involving the sexual assault of a 4-(Experiment 2 only), 6-, or 14-year old female. The summaries were presented in one of four conditions: (a) child condition--the alleged victim testified; (b) hearsay condition--the alleged victim did not testify, but an adult hearsay witness did testify; (c) multiple condition (Experiment 1 only)--both the alleged victim and the adult hearsay witness testified; and (d) no-witness condition--neither the alleged victim nor the hearsay witness testified. The hearsay testimony was believed to a considerable degree, and this testimony led to an increase in the perceived guilt of the defendant. Moreover, these results were comparable to those of conditions in which the alleged victim testified. The results are discussed in terms of the psychosocial factors affecting the perception of hearsay testimony in a child sexual assault trial.

Evidence. Hearsay. Federal Indictment Based Solely on Hearsay Testimony of Experts Is Valid

Evidence. Hearsay. Federal Indictment Based Solely on Hearsay Testimony of Experts Is Valid