Goodman, G.S., Tobey, A.E.., Batterman-Faunce, J.M. Orcutt, H., Thomas, S., Shapiro, C., & Sachsenmaier, T. (1998). Face-to-face confrontation: Effects of closed-circuit technology on children’s eyewitness testimony and jurors’ decisions. Law and Human Behavior(2), 165-203.

Essentially, the debate is CCTV or no CCTV? The judicial system itself is unsure as to the correct answer to this question. In 1988 in the case Coy v. Iowa, the United States Supreme Court ruled against the use of CCTV with Justice Scalia citing violations of the 6^th and 14^th amendments of the Constitution. However, in 1990 in the case Maryland v Craig, the United States Supreme Court ruled for the use of CCTV and Justice O’Connor called for a "particularized" case by case decision on the subject. So, the question remains: regardless of constitutional fairness, what are the effects of CCTV, if any?

1. Older children and children testifying via CCTV would make less omission errors and be less suggestible than younger children and children testifying in open court.

2. Those testifying in open court would have more pretrial stress.

3. More children in the open court condition would refuse to testify than those in the CCTV condition.

4. Legal knowledge and self concept would influence children’s willingness to testify.

5. Children in the CCTV condition would be seen by jurors as less credible and thus, the defendant seem as more innocent in the CCTV condition.

6. Jurors will rate the older children as more credible.

7. Jurors will find it difficult to assess the accuracy of the younger children as compared to the older children.

8. Jurors’ perceptions of child confidence and consistency will be + correlated with their perceptions of accuracy and believability.

9. Women and people with experience around children will view the children more favorably than men and people without experience.

Procedure:

Session 1: The child was given the PPVT-R and PCSA inventories and the parent given the CBCL and authoritarian inventories. Then the child and parent were brought into another room where a male "babysitter" was waiting. The researcher told the child that the babysitter would watch over the child while the parent finished up paperwork. The child and sitter played for about 20 minutes. Then, the parent and researcher returned and the child left ( after picking out a toy to take home). Parents were told not to discuss the visit.

Session 2: 1-2 days later. The child is told that the parent must go somewhere else and that the babysitter from last time will watch the child. The confederate suggests that they make a movie together with the video equipment in the room. The child will be the actor and the "sitter" the director and the child will receive a nickel for every time followed instruction. At this point, the child is either in the defendant guilty condition or in the defendant not guilty condition. In the guilty condition, the child is told to place a sticker on his exposed upper arm, exposed toes or exposed bellybutton. In the not guilty condition, the child places stickers on his sleeve, shoe or belt buckle. Then, the two looked at art pictures and then played a game. 18 minutes later, the parent and RA returned and the child once again picked out a toy. Then, the parent alone with the child questioned the child with standard questions (did you have fun?).

Session 3: The mock trial. 2 week delay from session 2. The child is told by the parent that the child is going downtown to talk to some people about when the child made the movie with the man. The child was first questioned about legal knowledge and expectations. Then, the parent, child and RA took a tour of the courtroom while the child was explained the while courtroom process. After this the child was questioned pretrial memory questions concerning the movie event. The child was then told that the babysitter might be in trouble for making the movie but that the child was in no way in trouble. The child was then told that a judge wanted the child to testify to what had happened. The child was then asked if they would testify. If yes, the child was given the SAS and CAQ to see how the child was feeling. The child was randomly put in the open court condition of the CCTV condition. The child was then taken to the stand where he was instructed to tell the truth and to say "I don’t know" if they did not know the answer.

The mock jurors had been brought in while the child was on tours. The jurors were told to pretend that videotaping a child’s exposed body parts was a major crime and that they were to determine whether or not the defendant was guilty or not guilty. The jury heard opening arguments from both attorneys. The jury then left while the judge determined if the child was competent to testify by asking 16 questions about truth and lie. The jury was then brought back in and the child was sworn in. The child testified for 20 minutes. In the CCTV condition, the difference was that there was a large tv in the courtroom and the child testified from another room. The judge explained that no inferences should be drawn from the use of the CCTV.

• Regarding the free recall questions asked in the trial, the older children recalled more information ( correct and incorrect) than the younger children.
• When combining responses to the specific, misleading, and correctly misleading questions, older children were more accurate than the younger children regardless of trial condition.
• Older children had a higher proportion of correct info and a lower proportion of commission and omission errors.
• Regarding responses to misleading questions, older children were less suggestible.
• Younger children testifying in open court made more commission errors than the older children when the defendant was guilty.
• Younger children in open court also made more errors in omission than the younger children in CCTV condition.
• Children with more legal knowledge were more correct in direct questioning than those with lesser knowledge.
• Children with more legal knowledge were less anxious about testifying.
• In the CCTV condition, the older children were more anxious than the younger children.
• Children who were younger with poor memory on direct questions, more anxiety, and lower verbal ability were more likely to refuse to testify. Also, children who had less authoritarian parents and asked to testify in open court were more likely to refuse.
• Women jurors believed the trial to be less fair to the defendant overall.
• Women jurors also believed the open court trial to be less fair to the child than the CCTV trial.
• Men were more defense pro. Men were more likely to think the children misunderstood the event.
• Both men and women were more likely to believe the older children.
• Women more likely than men to believe the younger children.
• No evidence that the jurors thought accuracy functioned as a result of open court or CCTV.
• Jurors perceptions of confidence and consistency was + correlated with perceptions of accuracy and believability.
• Guilt condition predicted verdict.
• When the defendant was guilty, the child gave more free recall info and had fewer direct questions correct when not guilty.
• Those in CCTV condition were more accurate in direct questioning.
• Childrens’ decreased accuracy in the guilty condition led to the jurors rating the child as more accurate and credible.