Two experiments investigated the impact of DNA evidence in a child sexual assault (CSA) case involving a 6-year-old alleged victim. In Experiment 1, participants read criminal trial summaries of CSA cases in which only DNA evidence was presented, only the alleged child victim's testimony was presented, or both forms of evidence were presented. When DNA evidence was presented, there were more guilty verdicts and greater belief of the alleged victim than when only the alleged victim testified. In Experiment 2, DNA evidence was countered by an alibi witness testifying as to the defendant's whereabouts at the time of the alleged assault. The alibi witness reduced the influence of DNA evidence compared with when DNA evidence was presented without this witness. These results are discussed in terms of the comparative strengths of DNA evidence versus the testimony of the alleged victim.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bottoms, B. L.
(1993). Individual differences in perceptions of child sexual assault victims. In G. S. Goodman & B. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses (pp. 229-261). New York: Guilford.
2.
Bottoms, B. L.
, & Goodman, G. S. (1994). Perceptions of children's credibility in sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 702-732.
3.
Cutler, B. L.
, Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185-191.
4.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
5.
Diamond, S.S.
(1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.
6.
Dillehay, R. C.
, & Nietzel, M. T. (1980). Constructing a science of jury behavior. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 246-264). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7.
Duggan, L. M., III
, Aubrey, M., Doherty, E., Isquith, P., Levine, M., & Scheiner, J. (1989). The believability of children as witnesses in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. In S.J. Ceci, D. F. Ross, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Perspectives on children's testimony (pp. 71-99). New York: Springer-Verlag.
8.
Federal rules of evidence. (1999). Retrieved May 14, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/overview.html
9.
Gabora, N. J.
, Spanos, N. P., & Joab, A. (1993). The effects of complaint age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 103-119.
10.
Golding, J. M.
, Alexander, M. C., & Stewart, T. L. (in press). The effect of hearsay witness age in a child sexual assault trial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.
11.
Golding, J. M.
, Sanchez, R. P., & Sego, S. A. (1996). Do you believe in repressed memories?Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 429-437.
12.
Golding, J. M.
, Sanchez, R. P., & Sego, S. A. (1997). The believability of hearsay testimony in a child sexual assault trial. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 299-325.
13.
Golding, J. M.
, Sanchez, R. P., & Sego, S. A. (1999). Age factors affecting the believability of repressed memories of child sexual assault. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 257-268.
14.
Golding, J. M.
, Sego, S. A., Sanchez, R. P., & Hasemann, D. (1995). The believability of repressed memories. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 569-592.
15.
Goodman, G. S.
, Bottoms, B. L., Herscovici, B. B., & Shaver, P. (1989). Determinants of the child victim's perceived believability. In S. J. Ceci, D. F. Ross, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Perspectives on children's testimony (pp. 1-22). New York: Springer-Verlag.
16.
Goodman, G. S.
, Golding, J. M., Helgeson, V., Haith, M. M., & Michelli, J. (1987). When a child takes the stand: Jurors' perceptions of children's eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 27-40.
17.
Isquith, P. K.
, Levine, M., & Scheiner, J. (1993). Blaming the child: Attribution of responsibility to victims of child sexual abuse. In G. S. Goodman & B. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses (pp. 203-228). New York: Guilford.
18.
Koehler, J. J.
, Chia, A., & Lindsey, S. (1995). The random match probability in DNA evidence: Irrelevant and prejudicial. Jurimetrics Journal, 35, 201-219.
19.
Kovera, M. B.
, Levy, R. J., Borgida, E., & Penrod, S. D. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual assault cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 653-674.
20.
Lander, E. S.
, & Budowle, B. (1994). DNA fingerprinting dispute laid to rest. Nature, 371, 735-738.
21.
Loftus, E. F.
, Weingardt, K., & Hoffman, H. (1993). Sleeping memories on trial: Reactions to memories that were previously repressed. Expert Evidence, 2, 51-59.
22.
Nietzel, M. T.
, McCarthy, D., & Harris, M. J. (1994). Juries: The current state of the empirical literature. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
23.
Nightingale, N. N.
(1993). Juror reactions to child victim witnesses: Factors affecting trial outcome. Law and Human Behavior, 171, 679-694.
24.
Sachs,A.
, & Willwerth,J. (1998,July 20). His Just reward?Time, 151, 26.
25.
Sargeant, G.
(1993). DNA evidence finding stricter scrutiny, new uses. Trial, 29, 15-17.
26.
Schklar, J.
, & Diamond, S. S. (1999). Juror reactions to DNA evidence: Errors and expectancies. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 159-184.
27.
Thompson, M.
(1988). DNA's troubled debut. California Lawyer, 8, 36-44.
28.
Thompson, W. C.
, & Ford, S. (1988). DNA typing: Promising forensic technique needs additional validation. Trial, 24, 56-64.
29.
Thompson, W. C.
, & Ford, S. (1992). DNA testing: Debate update. Trial, 28, 52-61.
30.
Thompson, W. C.
, & Schumann, E. L. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 167-187.
31.
Van Oorschot, R.A.H.
, & Jones, M. K. (1997). DNA fingerprints from fingerprints. Nature, 387, 767.
32.
Weedn, V. W.
, & Hicks, J. W. (1997). The unrealized potential of DNA testing. National Institute of Justice Journal, 234, 16-23.
