The present study examined the frequency and content of implicit questions asked to 6- to 17-year-olds during cross-examinations (N = 122) of children in child sexual assault trials and analyzed how often they rebutted these questions. Through qualitative content analysis, we found that defense attorneys most commonly asked children implicit questions about: ulterior motives, coaching, being untruthful, missing disclosure opportunities, having poor memory, and other credibility issues. Implicit questions were posed in 63% of cases, with children rebutting only 11% of implied inquiries. We observed no significant correlations between the age of children testifying and the overall frequency of implicit questions or rebuttals. However, age differences were found based on the content of the questions; younger children (aged 6–12) were more frequently subjected to implicit inquiries about coaching, whereas teenaged adolescents (aged 13–17) faced more questions related to truthfulness and credibility issues. In conclusion, children were frequently asked implicit questions that implied credibility concerns, which may be difficult for children to understand. Furthermore, defense attorneys change the focus of the content of their implicit questions depending on the age of the child testifying.
AndrewsS. J.LambM. E. (2017). The structural linguistic complexity of lawyers’ questions and children’s responses in Scottish criminal courts. Child Abuse & Neglect, 65, 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.01.022
2.
AndrewsS. J.LambM. E.LyonT. D. (2015). Question types, responsiveness and self-contradictions when prosecutors and defense attorneys question alleged victims of child sexual abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(2), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3103
3.
BrendliK. R.BrodaM. D.BrownR. (2022). Children with intellectual disability and victimization: A logistic regression analysis. Child Maltreatment, 27(3), 320–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559521994177
4.
CicciaA. H.MeulenbroekP.TurkstraL. S. (2009). Adolescent brain and cognitive developments. Topics in Language Disorders, 29(3), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e3181b53211
5.
Corte-RealA.AlmiroP. A.SilvaM.NunesT.AbreuJ.CarreiraC.VieiraD. N. (2023). Oral health professional intervention and child physical abuse—European legal approach. Forensic Sciences Research, 8(4), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/fsr/owad042
CromerL. D.GoldsmithR. E. (2010). Child sexual abuse myths: Attitudes, beliefs, and individual differences. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(6), 618–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2010.522493
8.
FessingerM. B.McAuliffB. D.AronsonE.McWilliamsK. (2024). Attorneys’ experiences, perceptions, and plea recommendations in child sexual abuse cases. Law and Human Behavior, 48(1), 13.
9.
HannaK.DaviesE.CrothersC.HendersonE. (2012). Questioning child witnesses in New Zealand’s criminal justice system: Is cross-examination fair?Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 19(4), 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2011.615813
10.
HendersonH.LambM. E. (2017). Pre-recording children’s trial testimony: Effects on the criminal justice system. Criminal Law Review, 5, 345–356.
11.
HendersonH. M.LambM. E. (2019). Does implementation of reform authorized in Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act affect the complexity of the questions asked of young alleged victims in court?Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3466
12.
HobbsP. (2003). You must say it for him: Reformulating a witness testimony on cross-examination at trial. Text, 23(4), 477–511. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.019
13.
HopperJ. (2020). Important things to get right about the “neurobiology of trauma.”Part 1: Benefits of Understanding the Science. End Violence Against Women International.
14.
KulkofskyS.KlemfussJ. Z. (2008). What the stories children tell can tell about their memory: Narrative skill and young children’s suggestibility. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1442–1456. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012849
15.
LyonT. D.AhernE. C. (2011). Disclosure of child sexual abuse. In MyersJ. (Ed.), The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment (3rd ed., pp. 233–252). SAGE.
NathansonR.SaywitzK. J. (2015). Preparing children for court: Effects of a model court education program on children’s anticipatory anxiety. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 33(4), 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2191
18.
StevensL. M.HendersonH. M.LambM.E. (2021). Linguistically complex recognition prompts in pre-recorded cross-examinations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 39, 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2504
19.
St. GeorgeS.DenneE.StolzenbergS. N. (2022a). Blaming children: How rape myths manifest in defense attorneys’ questions to children testifying about child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(17–18), 16623–16646. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211023485
20.
St. GeorgeS.DenneE.StolzenbergS. N. (2022b). “This incident happened when there were 10 people in the house?” Exploring a framework to categorize defense attorneys’ plausibility questioning in CSA trials. Psychology, Crime & Law, 30(6), 556–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2104277
21.
St. GeorgeS.SullivanC.WylieB. E.McWilliamsK.EvansA. D.StolzenbergS. N. (2022c). Did your mom help you remember?: An examination of attorneys’ subtle questioning about suggestive influence to children testifying about child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(15–16), 13902–13927. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211006369
22.
SzojkaZ. A.AndrewsS. J.LambM. E.StolzenbergS. N.LyonT. D. (2017). Challenging the credibility of alleged victims of child sexual abuse in Scottish courts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(2), 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000117
23.
WylieB. E.EvansA. D.McWilliamsK.StolzenbergS. N. (2023a). Children’s understanding of implied coaching questions: Does acquiescence influence perceptions of believability?Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 85, 101510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2022.101510
24.
WylieB. E.St. GeorgeS.McWilliamsK.EvansA. D.StolzenbergS. N. (2022). Children’s acquiescence to polysemous implicature questions about coaching: The role of parental support. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 78, 101370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101370
25.
WylieB. E.StolzenbergS. N.EvansA. D. (2023b). Describing coercion in the courtroom: The influence of language and maltreatment severity on jurors’ perceptions of child witnesses. Child Maltreatment, 29(4), 648–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595231210015
26.
YoonE. J.FrankM. C. (2019). The role of salience in young children’s processing of ad hoc implicatures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 186, 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.04.008
27.
ZajacR.O’NeillS.HayneH. (2012). Disorder in the courtroom? Child witnesses under cross examination. Developmental Review, 32(3), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.006
