Current Practices in the Use of Televised Child Testimony: Questions of Constitutionality and Personal Biases

• Author: Ernest S. Graham,Sharon Boland Hamill,Renee Huerta-Choy,Emmett Thomason
• Published date: 01 December 2001
• Date: 01 December 2001
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403401012004002
• Subject Matter: Journal Article

CRIMINALJUSTICEPOLICYREVIEW/December 2001Hamilletal./TELEVISEDCHILD TESTIMONY

Current Practices in the Use of

Televised Child Testimony:

Questions of Constitutionality and

Personal Biases

Sharon Boland Hamill

California State University, San Marcos

Ernest S. Graham

University of Puget Sound

Emmett Thomason, III

Renee Huerta-Choy

California State University, San Marcos

This study surveyed prosecuting attorneys’offices to determine the current practices

involvingthe use of televised testimony of child witnesses. Members (or designates) of

the National District Attorneys Association (n= 768) completed questionnaires that

assessed whether theyhad ever used televised child testimony and whether its use had

led to an appeal. Respondents who had never used televised testimony were askedto

indicate the reason(s) why they had chosen not to use it. Results suggestedthat tele-

vised testimony is not a common practice among respondentsin that only 17.1% of the

sample used it. If a respondentdid use it, it was unlikely to lead to an appeal (only 22.9%

of the time). Respondents who had never used this type of testimony reported that a

variety of legal and practical restrictions,as well as their own personal beliefs, pre-

vented them fromdoing so. Results are discussed in terms of the controversy regarding

the use of televised testimony.

At present, a controversy brews over the use of alternative procedures for

providing testimony in cases involving child witnesses. The increase in the

number of child abuse cases reported to Child Protective Services agencies

has contributed to a consonant increase in the number of children being

called on to testify in court against alleged assailants (Cashmore, 1995;

282

AUTHORS’NOTE: This research was supported by a grant from the UniversityEnrichment

Committee at the University of Puget Sound to the first and second authors.

Criminal Justice PolicyReview, Volume12, Number 4, December 2001 282-294

© 2001 Sage Publications