The purpose of this article is to examine the expert evidence on the credibility of children's testimony and the potential risks it poses as a source of error in the criminal justice system. To achieve this, under the regulatory prism of Chile and Spain, we will identify the main techniques and procedures commonly used in this type of evidence and we will explain how their high margin of error does not align with the requirements of the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt. Therefore, due to its questionable status as regards reliability and acceptability, we will conclude that this evidence should only be used as peripheral corroborative support of testimony in qualified cases, aiming to minimise its potential negative impact on the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals.
AguirrezabalM (2023) Valoración de la pericia e infracción a las leyes reguladoras de la prueba. Revista Chilena de Derecho Privado40: 365–378.
2.
AmadoBArceRFariñaF (2015) Undeutsch hypothesis and criteria based content analysis: A meta-analytic review. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context7(1): 3–12.
3.
AmadoBArceRFariñaFet al. (2016) Criteria-Based content analysis (CBCA) reality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology16(2): 201–210.
4.
ArangüenaC (2022) Declaración de personas vulnerables y preconstitución de la prueba en el proceso penal. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal8(3): 1093–1125.
5.
ArceR (2017) Análisis de contenido de las declaraciones de testigos: Evaluación de la validez científica y judicial de la hipótesis y la prueba forense. Acción Psicológica14(2): 171–190.
6.
ArmentaT (2023) Lecciones de Derecho Procesal Penal. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
7.
BaartmanH (1992) The credibility of children as witnesses and the social denial of the incestuous abuse of children. In: LöselFBenderDBliesenerT (eds) Psychology and Law: Lnternational Perspectives. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, pp. 335–351.
8.
BaginskyA (1907) Die Impressionabilität der Kinder unter dem Einfluss des Milieus. In: Beiträge zur Kinderforschung und Heilerziehung, XXVII. Langensalza: Ed. Beyer and Mann, pp. 1–21.
9.
BeltránR (2021) Pena, motivación y control. Análisis del proceso de individualización judicial de la pena y su justificación argumentativa en sede jurisdiccional. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
10.
BeltránRContrerasCLetelierE (2023) Derecho Procesal I: Fuentes, Jurisdicción y Competencia. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
Blandón-GitlinILópezRMasipcJet al. (2017) Cognición, emoción y mentira: Implicaciones para detectar el engaño. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica27(1): 95–106.
13.
BourdinC-É (1883) Les enfants menteurs. In: Annales Médico-Psychologiques 9: Journal destiné à recueillir tous les documents relatifs à l’aliénation mentale aux névroses et à la médecine légale desaliénés. Paris: G. Masson, pp. 53–67.
14.
BrimbalLCrossmanAM (2023) Inconvenient truth-tellers: Perceptions of children’s blunt honesty. Journal of Moral Education52(3): 275–290.
15.
CanzioG (2021) Alle radici dell'errore giudiziario: “heuristics and biases”. In: Lupária L (ed) L'errore giudiziario. Milano, Giuffrè: 81–91.
16.
CarbonellF (2018) Sana crítica y razonamiento judicial. In: Benfeld J and LarroucauJ (eds) La sana crítica bajo sospecha. Valparaíso: Ediciones Universitarias de Valparaíso, pp. 35–47.
17.
CarbonellF (2021) El lugar del error en el diseño de los procesos judiciales. In: CarbonellFValenzuelaJ (dirs) Fundamentos filosóficos del Derecho procesal. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, pp.293–323.
18.
CarneluttiF (1949) Lezioni sul processo penale IV. Roma: Edizioni Dell’Ateneo.
19.
Carta di Noto IV (2017) Linee guida per l'esame del minore, 14 ottobre 2017. Available at: https://aipgitalia.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Carta-di-Noto-IV-2017.pdf
20.
ColemanLKayP (1981) Prototype semantics: The English word lie. Language57(1): 26–44.
21.
ContrerasC (2015) La valoración de la prueba en el interrogatorio. Madrid, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo: Marcial Pons.
22.
CousoJ (2006) El niño como sujeto de derechos y la nueva justicia de familia. Interés superior del niño, autonomía progresiva y derecho de ser oído. In: Revista de Derechos del Niño3–4. Santiago: Universidad Diego Portales—UNICEF, pp. 145–166.
23.
CuellarMLubyAMauroJ (2021). A probabilistic formalization of contextual bias in forensic analysis: Evidence that examiner bias leads to systemic bias in the criminal justice system. CrimRxiv1–37. https://doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.db951e6a
DamaskaM (2020) Evaluation of Evidence: premodern and modern approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
DenaultVPlusquellecPJupeLMet al. (2020) The analysis of nonverbal communication: The dangers of pseudoscience in security and justice contexts. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica30(1): 1–12.
27.
De PaulaV (2019) La prueba testifical. Del subjetivismo al objetivismo, del aislamiento científico al diálogo con la psicología y epistemología. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
28.
DePauloBLindsayJMaloneBet al. (2003) Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin129(1): 74–118.
29.
DongoisN (2022) L’erreur judiciaire en matière pénale. Regards croisés sur ses contours et ses causes potentielles. Zürich: Schulthess.
30.
DuceM (2018) Prueba pericial y su impacto en los errores del sistema de justicia penal: Antecedentes comparados y locales para iniciar el debate. Revista Ius et Praxis24(2): 223–262.
31.
DuceM (2022) Los errores. La aplicación al caso concreto y los sesgos cognitivos de los peritos. In: En VázquezC (coord.), Manual de prueba pericial. México D.F: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, pp. 143–183.
32.
EdmondGTangenJSearstonRet al. (2015) Contextual bias and cross-contamination in the forensic sciences: The corrosive implications for investigations, plea bargains, trials and appeals. Law, Probability and Risk14(1): 1–25.
33.
ForstB (2013) Wrongful convictions in a world of miscarriages of justice. In: HuffRKilliasM (eds) Wrongful Conviction and Miscarriages of Justice: Causes and Remedies in North American and European Criminal Justice Systems. New York: Routledge, pp.15–43.
34.
Framarino Dei MalatestaN (1894) Lógica de las pruebas en materia criminal, t. II. Madrid: Editorial La España Moderna.
FuentesC (2024) Vulnerable witnesses in Chilean criminal proceedings: New developments. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof28(1): 65–79.
37.
General Comment No. 12 (2009) The right of the child to be heard. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, CRC/C/GC/12, 20 July 2009. Available at: https//www.refworld.org/legal/general/crc/2009/en/70207
38.
GoddenD (2010) Corroborative evidence. In: En ReedCTindaleC.W (eds) Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton’s Theories of Reasoning and Argument. London: College Publications, pp.201–212.
39.
GuilhermetG (1911) Comment se font les erreurs judiciaires. Paris: Schleicher frères.
40.
GutiérrezL (2021) Evaluación del abuso sexual infantil en la actualidad: Revisión teórica y aspectos metodológicos. Psicopatología Clínica, Legal y Forense21(1): 120–140.
41.
HaackS (2008) Verdad y justicia, investigación y abogacía, ciencia y ley. In: HaackS (ed) Ciencia, sociedad y cultura. Santiago de Chile: Ed. Universidad Diego Portales, pp.281–304.
42.
HaackS (2020) Prueba y error: la filosofía de la ciencia de la Corte Suprema Estadounidense. In: En HaackS (ed) Filosofía del derecho y de la prueba. Madrid: Marcial Pons, pp.183–201.
43.
HartwigMBondC (2011) Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin137(4): 643–659.
44.
HendersonHLambM (2018) Does implementation of reforms 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 Cognit Psychology33(2): 201–213.
45.
IgartuaJ (2009) El razonamiento en las resoluciones judiciales. Lima: Palestra.
46.
KöhnkenG (2004) Statement validity analysis and the ‘detection of the truth’. In: GranhagPStrömwallL (eds) The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.41–63.
47.
KöhnkenGManzaneroAScottM (2015) Análisis de la validez de las declaraciones: Mitos y limitaciones. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica25(1): 13–19.
48.
KunklerSRoyT (2023) Reducing the impact of cognitive bias in decision making: Practical actions for forensic science practitioners. Forensic Science International: Synergy7: 1–8.
49.
LavoieJLeducKCrossmanAet al. (2016) Do as I say and not as I think: Parent socialization of lie-telling behavior. Children & Society30(4): 253–264.
50.
ManzaneroAMúñozJ (2011) La prueba pericial psicológica sobre credibilidad del testimonio: reflexiones psico-legales, in Technical Report. Madrid: SEPIN, pp.1–13.
51.
MazzoniG (2019) Psicología del testimonio. Madrid: Ed. Trotta.
52.
MontanariGMarinelliEMastronardiVet al. (2018) The credibility of testimony from minors allegedly victims of abuse within the Italian legislative framework. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry56: 58–64.
53.
MostellerR (2015) Pernicious inferences: Double counting and perception and evaluation biases in criminal cases. Howard Law Journal58(2): 365–396. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2499055
54.
MotetA (1887) Les faux témoignages des enfants devant la justice. Paris: J.B. Baillière et Fils.
55.
NievaJ (2018) Repensando Daubert:La paradoja de la prueba pericial. Civil Procedure Review9(1): 11–26.
56.
NorrisRBonventreCAckerJ (2018) When Justice Fails. Causes and Consequences of Wrongful Convictions. Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.
57.
PoyserSNurseAMilneR (2018) Miscarriages of Justice: Causes, Consequences and Remedies. Chicago: Policy Press.
58.
RassinE (1999) Criteria based content analysis: The less scientific road to truth. Expert Evidence7(4): 265–278.
59.
RomaPSan MartiniPSabatelloUet al. (2011) Validity of criteria-based content analysis (CBCA) at trial in free-narrative interviews. Child Abuse & Neglect35(8): 613–620.
60.
RubyCBrighamJ (1997) The usefulness of the criteria-based content analysis technique in distinguishing between truthful and fabricated allegations: A critical review. Psychology. Public Policy, and Law3(4): 705–737.
61.
SchauerF (2022) The Proof. Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
62.
SchauerFSpellmanB (2013) Is expert evidence really different?Notre Dame Law Review89(1): 1–26.
63.
SporerSSchwandtB (2007) Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law13(1): 1–34.
TaruffoM (2020) La ciencia en el proceso: Problemas y perspectivas. In: En TaruffoM (ed) Hacia la decisión justa. Lima: Editorial Ceji—Zela, pp.409–425.
66.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science (New York, N.Y.)185(4157): 1124–1131.
67.
VaraAManzaneroAValletR (2021) Víctimas de abuso sexual especialmente vulnerables: Obtención del testimonio. Revista Derecho & Sociedad57: 1–39.
68.
VeraJ (2022) Valoración probatoria: exigencias legales, jurisprudenciales y doctrinales. Santiago de Chile: Academia Judicial de Chile.
69.
VrijA (2005) Criteria-based content analysis. A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law11(1): 3–41.
70.
WalshDMilneR (2008) Keeping the he PEACE? A study of investigative interviewing practices in the public sector. Legal and Criminological Psychology13(1): 39–57.
71.
Wheeler v United Stated (1895) 159 U.S. 523. Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/159/523/
72.
WigmoreJH (1940) Evidence in Trials at Common Law, Vol. 8. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
