The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: 

Document Title: Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in 

Criminal Trials: Assessing Defense Attacks 

on Credibility and Identifying Effective 

Prosecution Methods

Author(s): Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Ph.D.

Document Number: 254627 

Date Received: April 2020

Award Number: 2016-R2-CX-0050

This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of 

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials: Assessing Defense Attacks on 

Credibility and Identifying Effective Prosecution Methods

Final Summary Overview 

Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Ph.D. 

School of Criminology & Criminal Justice

Arizona State University

411 N. Central Ave., Suite 600 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

602-496-0495 

Stacia.Stolzenberg@asu.edu

February 2020 

This project was supported by Award No. 2016-R2-CX-0050 awarded by the National Institute 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice to Arizona State University. 

The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in this publication are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

2

Abstract

 

Due to delays in reporting, lacking witnesses, and infrequent medical and physical 

evidence, in criminal investigations of alleged child sexual abuse (CSA), children’s reports of 

abuse become central to determining whether a crime occurred. While researchers acknowledge 

that developmental vulnerabilities make children particularly susceptible to courtroom 

questioning, potentially influencing the reliability and validity of their in-court reports, little 

attention has been paid to how children are questioned in-court. Only one previous dataset, 

collected on older cases, can speak to questioning practices in the United States. This was the 

purpose of the present project: to examine how attorneys establish and attack children’s 

credibility. In addition, we were interested in assessing how attorneys would phrase questions, 

how children would respond, and whether questioning practices would exhibit developmental 

sensitivity. 

Collecting cases prosecuted between 2005 and 2015 in Maricopa County, Arizona, we 

examined transcripts of 134 minors (5-17-year-olds) testifying about alleged child sexual abuse 

in criminal trials. The majority of cases involved allegations against a familiar, if not familial, 

adult. Children commonly alleged repeated abuse. All question and answer pairs were coded for 

whether questions assessed three areas of credibility: suggestibility and honesty, plausibility, and 

consistency. In addition, all question and answer pairs were systematically coded for the 

linguistic form of each attorney question and each child’s subsequent response. 

Consistency concerns seemed to be embedded in nearly all questions in some capacity, 

representing 79% of prosecutor questions and 89% of defense questions. In addition, prosecutors 

devoted more time to establishing plausibility than did the defense, at the expense of addressing 

suggestibility and honesty, to which the defense gave proportionally more attention. Prosecutors 

also asked the fewest credibility questions of the youngest children, while defense attorneys did 

not differ in the proportion of credibility questions by the age of the child. Closed-ended 

questions accounted for three-out-of-four attorney questions; while children provided elaborative 

responses to open questions, they provided unleaborative responses to closed-ended questions. 

We found that declarative questions, or statements posed as questions (e.g. “He hit you?”) were 

common, representing 21% of overall questions, and indirect yes/no questions (e.g. “Do you 

remember if he hit you?”) were common, describing 11% of all questions asked. Children 

provided the most unelaborative and fewest elaborative responses to declarative questions, and 

the most non-substantive responses to indirect yes/no questions, when compared to other closedended questions. While prosecutors were more likely to ask open-questions, and less likely to ask 

suggestive questions, when compared to the defense, they had similar rates of closed-ended 

questions (including declarative and indirect yes/no questions). There were few differences in 

questioning practices, or response patterns, based on the age of the child. 

Our data demonstrate that declarative and indirect yes/no questions produce problematic 

response patterns. In addition, the issues of consistency, or inconsistency, dominate in courtroom 

investigations of CSA, whereas issues of suggestive influence, honesty, and plausibility receive 

significantly less attention. Furthermore, according to the kinds of credibility questions observed, 

children may not be developmentally mature enough to answer the questions asked of them - a 

tactic that may in itself be undermining credibility, particularly by the defense. Researchers 

should work alongside prosecuting attorneys to develop effective training methods, as little is 

known about how attorneys learn how to question children in these cases. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

3

Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials: Assessing Defense Attacks on 

Credibility and Identifying Effective Prosecution Methods

In 2017, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded this project examining how 

children allege sexual abuse in criminal trials. In doing so, we conducted observational fieldwork 

of criminal investigations of recent child sexual abuse (CSA) cases, examining how children 

were questioned, with a particular focus on how they respond. The purpose was to assess how 

children’s credibility is established and questioned in courtroom investigations of sexual abuse 

allegations. In doing so, the goals were to: 1) examine how prosecuting and defense attorneys 

both establish and attack children’s credibility, and 2) to assess the form, appropriateness, and 

developmental sensitivity of attorneys’ questions. The intent was to provide practical 

recommendations for future cases, allowing for a better understanding of children’s 

vulnerabilities and competencies when acting as witnesses. 

Background 

In criminal investigations of alleged CSA, children’s reports of abuse become central to 

determining whether a crime occurred. This is because children’s reports are often the primary 

evidence against the defendant; in cases of CSA, witnesses are uncommon (Myers et al., 1989) 

and there is usually limited evidence to support allegations beyond what the child claims 

occurred (Bays & Chadwick, 1993; Stolzenberg & Lyon, 2014a). While other countries have 

modified their procedures to accommodate children as unique victims, lessening the need for 

children to testify in court, this is untrue of the United States. In addition, it is unlikely to occur 

in the United States because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 

upholding the right of defendants to confront their accusers in court (Lyon & Stolzenberg, 2015). 

As such, in the United States, the criminal justice system is heavily reliant upon children’s inThis resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

4

court testimony. Yet, children are vulnerable to courtroom processes, and their developing 

cognitive and socio-emotional abilities may limit their ability to effectively participate as victims 

unless appropriate techniques are utilized. However, little attention has been paid to how 

children are questioned in-court, with only a handful of researchers, internationally, studying this 

process. In addition, prior to the current investigation, the only data on children’s testimony in 

the United States comes from a single sample of cases from the 1990’s in a single jurisdiction. 

Furthermore, there have been no systematic assessments of how credibility is assessed when 

children testify in the United States. The purpose of the present project was to do so by 

examining how attorneys assess children on three areas that may influence credibility: 

suggestibility and honesty, plausibility, and consistency. In addition, we were interested in how 

attorneys would phrase their questions, how children would respond, and whether questioning 

practices would exhibit developmental sensitivity. 

Suggestibility and Honesty 

Legitimate concerns exist over how others may influence children. Researchers have 

examined how children’s reports can be coached by influential adults, but also by how children’s 

reports can be altered by less overt methods such as leading questioning or suggestive techniques 

(Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman & Bruck, 1994; Schuman, 1986). This is amplified by the fact that 

before a trial occurs, children reporting alleged sexual abuse have disclosed to many adults 

(Malloy, Brubacher, & Lamb, 2013; Malloy, Lyon & Quas, 2007), and there are often long 

delays between these conversations and the child’s testimony (Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Stolzenberg 

& Lyon, 2014b). As such, attorneys are likely to ask children about what they have said during 

prior disclosures, and what recipients have said in return, in an attempt to assess potential 

suggestive influence, as well as the child’s truthfulness in reporting their allegations (Stolzenberg 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

5

& Lyon, 2014a). We were interested in assessing how attorneys may establish or challenge 

children’s honesty, by asking about both lying and potential suggestive influence by others. 

Plausibility 

Credibility depends upon jurors understanding, and believing, that abuse occurred as the 

child alleges it did. Yet, the dynamics of CSA may make this challenging. Children often delay 

their disclosures for lengthy periods of time, may not be physically hurt by abuse, and may 

describe abuse as a gradual progression of seductive and grooming behaviors that border on 

normal caregiving activities with familiar of familial adults over lengthy periods of time 

(Finkelhor, 1984; Leclerc, Proulx, & Beauregard, 2009; Stolzeznberg & Lyon, 2014b). As such, 

abuse is rarely forceful or violent, and children rarely disclose immediately. Many cases may 

have some of these counterintuitive characteristics, and when they do, researchers find that jurors 

are more likely to acquit defendants (Stolzenberg & Lyon, 2014b). This then becomes a critical 

avenue for both establishing and attacking children’s credibility during courtroom testimony. 

Attorneys are likely to be concerned about jurors’ conceptions of what plausible CSA looks like. 

We were interested in examining how attorneys discuss the plausibility of abuse. 

Consistency 

 Children’s reports, as with adults, are likely to contain inconsistencies. These may, or 

may not, be related to the validity of the overall report. For example, children may be 

inconsistent as a result of a large time delay between disclosure and trial, repeated questioning, 

an inability to remember specific details of the abuse (like time or location), and also difficulty 

distinguishing between different occurrences if abuse was chronic (Brubacher & La Rooy, 2014; 

Connolly, Gordon, Woiwod, & Price, 2016; Ghetti, Goodman, Eisen, Qin, & Davis, 2002; 

Roberts & Blades, 1999). Furthermore, children may have difficulty explaining their 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

6

inconsistencies (Malloy & Lamb, 2010). Due to this, attorneys are likely to address children’s 

consistency, as a means of assessing whether inconsistencies are significant enough to call into 

question children’s credibility (or for the prosecutors, as a means of demonstrating that central, 

allegation details are consistent and reliably reported). We were interested in how often, and 

how, attorneys might address children’s consistency when testifying about alleged CSA. 

Productivity and Language: How Attorneys Phrase Questions and How Children Respond

 Concerns exist over how to best question children in court. Prior to children’s courtroom 

testimony, protocol guidelines that dictate how to interview children during the investigative 

process recommend that interviewers ask non-suggestive, open-ended questions, resulting in 

longer, more detailed, and more accurate responses (Lamb et al., 2018). In the same vein, 

researchers consistently demonstrate that closed-ended questions, or those that can be answered 

with a proffered response (e.g. saying “yes” after being asked a yes/no question), can elicit 

inaccurate and incomplete responses from children (Malloy & Stolzenberg, 2019). Yet, 

researchers find that, internationally, closed-ended questions dominate in court (Andrews & 

Lamb, 2016; Hanna et al., 2012; Henderson et al., 2019; Zajac & Cannan, 2009; Zajac, Gross & 

Hayne, 2003; Zajac, O’Neill, & Hayne, 2012). This is sensible, as attorneys are advised to keep 

control of children through questioning (Myers, 1986). Furthermore, expediency in the 

courtroom process is valued, so effectively eliciting information quickly is necessary. 

 However, not all closed-ended questions are created equal. Researchers acknowledge that 

while somewhat risky, closed-ended questions can be necessary to elicit information that 

children are reluctant to disclose (Ahern, Stolzenberg, McWilliams, & Lyon, 2016; Quas, 

Stolzenberg & Lyon, 2018; Stolzenberg et al., 2017a). Yet, some questions are more concerning; 

researchers agree that linguistically suggestive closed-ended questions that communicate the 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

7

expected response are very likely to produce problematic responses (e.g. “He touched you, didn’t 

he?”). Previously, researchers have commonly distinguished between suggestive closed-ended 

questions and non-suggestive closed-ended questions, ignoring the potential for variation 

between different kinds of closed-ended questions. While defense attorneys are allowed to be 

leading, and may want children’s narratives to be confusing, the same is not true for prosecuting 

attorneys, who want to establish the child’s report as credible and convincing (Pennington & 

Hastie, 1992). As such, it would be expected that defense attorneys would ask more problematic 

questions, and prosecutors would aim to ask fewer, trying to encourage reliable, accurate 

information from child witnesses. Surprisingly though, little research assesses how attorneys 

may facilitate or hinder children’s productivity and accuracy by asking different kinds of closedended questions in court in the United States, or how this varies by the age of the child testifying. 

The Current Project

No research to date has systematically examined all potential assessments of children’s 

credibility, let alone how such questions are phrased, or how children respond. In addition, there 

is limited research to understand how children are questioned in the United States about alleged 

sexual abuse. The present investigation accomplished the above, and by doing so, provides 

concrete recommendations for more effectively eliciting information about credibility in-court 

while remaining sensitive to the developmental vulnerabilities of children. 

Method

All ethics protocols were approved by Arizona State University’s Institutional Review 

Board. Working with the Maricopa County Attorneys’ Office, we obtained information on all 

victims who testified in cases of alleged child sexual abuse in Maricopa County from January of 

2005 to December, 2015 (N = 398 victims across 252 cases). Cases were eligible if they involved 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

8

at least a single charge of: Sexual Conduct with a Minor (A.R.S. 13-1405), Child Molestation (A. 

R. S. 13-1410), or Sex Abuse (A. R. S. 13-1404). We contacted and paid court reporters to share 

transcripts of completed cases; 73 court reporters were contacted and 47 responded (64% 

response rate). We received 214 complete victim’s testimonies across 142 cases (some cases 

included multiple victims); the remaining court reporters were non-responsive. Of these 214 

testimonies, 134 were minors at testimony (across 101 cases; Mvictim per case = 1.33, SDvictim per case

= .65), whereas the remaining transcripts involved young adults testifying about alleged 

victimization during their childhood. For the purposes of the project, we examined the 134 

testimonies involving minors, including any child who testified at the age of 17 years or younger. 

 The children who testified ranged in age from 5 to 17 years old1

 (M = 12.48, SD = 3.34) 

and only 10% of our sample involved male victims. Defendants (99% male) were the child’s 

parent or caregiver 40% of the time, another family member 26% of the time, a family friend or 

other familiar adult (e.g. coaches, babysitters, neighbors) 29% of the time, and a stranger 5% of 

the time. Children alleged penetration or attempted intercourse in 34% of cases, oral copulation 

or genital contact in an additional 14% of cases, and less severe abuse in 52% of cases (fondling, 

exhibitionism, exposure to pornography). Fifty-six percent of children alleged repeated abuse, 

meaning that they delayed their disclosure after an initial sexual encounter. Ninety percent of 

cases resulted in a conviction of at least one charge of sex crimes against a child. 

Coding 

All question and answer pairs were systematically coded for: the linguistic form of the 

question type, the linguistic form of the child’s subsequent response type, the number of words 

 

1 The sample did not contain any preschoolers (3-4-year-olds). This is because there were no younger children in 

this age range who testified, suggesting that the cases with the youngest children are unlikely to go to trial. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

9

spoken in the question and answer, and the credibility content (honesty or suggestive influence, 

plausibility, consistency; productivity was assessed by the linguistic form and number of words). 

Credibility coding. Table 1 presents qualitative examples of questioning by each area of 

credibility. Coding for credibility was not mutually-exclusive; any given question-answer pair 

could be coded as assessing multiple areas of credibility simultaneously. 

Table 1. 

Qualitative Examples of Attorney Type Questioning by Each Area of Credibility

Prosecution Defense

 

Suggestibility/Honesty

What others have said to the 

child about reporting, the 

child's honesty, and the child's 

disclosure process 

“Okay is that the truth about 

what actually happened that 

time?”

“And did you talk to your 

mommy before coming to 

court today, and did she tell 

you anything about anything 

to say or anything like that?”

“Were you trying to be 

truthful with the detective?”

“Which version is the accurate 

version, the one that you told 

the officer or the one that you 

told the detective?”

 

Plausibility

Situational details, how the 

defendant has engaged the 

child, the mechanics of abuse, 

and the child’s subjective 

reaction to abuse 

“Was there ever a time where 

he touched your private 

parts?”

“Would you scream and 

yell?” 

“Did you try to...stop him 

from taking off your pants and 

your underwear?”

“You couldn’t be sure could 

you that you were actually 

touching a penis, could you?” 

 

Consistency

Attorneys asking about the 

child making the same 

statement as before or a 

different statement than before

“So is it your testimony today 

that you lied to the detective?” 

“But you remember telling a 

police officer about this?” 

“So that's different than your 

testimony to Mr. X earlier?” 

“Then why did you tell the 

jury you remembered how 

you got there and now you are 

telling the jury you don't 

remember?”

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

10

Suggestibility and honesty. We coded suggestibility/honesty as any question-answer pair 

addressing suggestive influences or child honesty, including what others had said to the child 

about reporting (e.g., “When the police came out to your nana's house, did your aunt tell you 

what to say to the police?”), the child’s honesty (e.g., “Did you guys all make this up because 

you were mad at him?”), as well as discussions about the child’s disclosure process (e.g., “He 

was kind of pushing you to say something to your mom [about the allegation], right?”). This 

category included any question about the disclosure process or the child's honesty in disclosing. 

Inherently, this meant that we included questions that overtly asked about suggestive influence 

(e.g., "Did your mom tell you what to say?"), and subtle questions (e.g., "Did your mom practice 

with you before coming to court today?"). We included questions about the disclosure process 

because these are points at which children's reports can be influenced. 

Plausibility. Plausibility was coded as any question-answer pair addressing abuse 

allegations (before and after the abuse), including attempts to establish situational details such as 

the presence of witnesses or location (e.g., “What room were you in?”), discussing how the 

defendant engaged the child in abuse including grooming and seduction behaviors (e.g., “Did he 

offer you any presents or say, you know, don’t tell anyone about this?”), the mechanics of abuse 

or how the abuse occurred physically (e.g., “...Now you testified that you didn't actually see if 

his penis was exposed on this particular incident?”), and questions about the child's subjective 

reactions to the abuse (e.g., “Well, tell me, I mean, so you were upset, right?”) 

Consistency. Consistency was defined as questioning something the child said previously 

– either pretrial (e.g., police interviews or forensic interviews) or earlier in testimony. This 

category addressed questions about both consistency, where attorneys ask about the child making 

the same statement as before (e.g., “You can tell me if I am wrong, but I think that at one time 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

11

you said that your dad had put his finger in -- I think you said privates?”), and inconsistency, 

where a child is making a different statement from before (e.g., “When he asked you how you 

got there, you told the jury you got there because your mom brought you. Now you are telling us 

you don't remember how you got there; is that correct?”). Consistency questions frequently 

overlapped with plausibility and suggestibility/honesty questions; content coding was not 

mutually-exclusive.

Linguistic coding for productivity assessment. Question type was identified as either 

non-substantive (either an incomplete question, or irrelevant to the child’s testimony: e.g. 

procedural requests for the child to sit or verbally relay their answer, or questions by the attorney 

to the judge) or substantive (a completely stated question relevant to the child’s testimony). 

Substantive questions were coded for their linguistic form across four main categories: 1) 

invitations (truly open prompts requesting the child’s narrative; e.g. “Tell me everything that 

happened when X.” or “What happened next?”), 2) Wh- questions not categorized as invitations 

(who, what, where, when, why, and how requests; e.g. “How did you feel when X happened?”), 

or 3) closed-ended questions (questions that require only an assent, a dissent, or the selection of a 

proffered response from their question stem; e.g. “Did you say ‘no?’”). 

Closed-ended questions were further coded for their specific form, including: 1) yes/no 

questions (could be answered with a yes or a no; “Did it hurt?”), 2) forced-choice (can be 

answered with a proffered option presented in the stem; “Were your clothes on or off?”), 3) 

declarative (a yes/no question phrased as a statement; “And then you went into the room?”), 4) 

indirect yes/no questions, or those that contain indirect speech acts such as “do you know” “do 

you remember” (yes/no questions that are preceded by an indirect speech act; “Do you know if it 

was day or night?”), 5) tag questions (a statement tagged on the end of the yes/no questions; “He 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

12

took your clothes off, didn’t he?”), and 6) negative term questions (a yes/no question beginning 

with a negative term; “Didn’t he tell you to be quiet?”). 

As done by previous researchers (Klemfuss et al., 2014; Stolzenberg & Lyon, 2014), both 

tag and negative term questions were categorized into a specific kind of closed-ended questions: 

linguistically suggestive closed-ended questions. These two question types represent a particular 

kind of closed-ended question that is presumed, based on linguistic form alone, to be more 

leading and problematic. They are henceforth referred to as suggestive questions. 

All questions were coded for whether they were echoes of a child’s prior statements. For 

example, if the attorney was repeating what the child had recently stated, in an attempt to clarify 

what the child had just said, ensure accurate interviewer understanding, or as a means to 

facilitate elaboration (e.g. “What did you say?” “I told him to go away.” “You told him to go 

away?”), it was coded as an echo. 

Response type was identified as either non-substantive or substantive. Non-substantive 

responses did not provide relevant or responsive information, and as such, included responses 

that were seeking clarification, expressing misunderstanding, or expressing a lack of knowledge 

(e.g. “I don’t know”). Substantive responses were categorized as either unelaborative (not 

providing details beyond assenting, dissenting, or selecting a proffered response) or elaborative 

(providing an open response); the average unelaborative response contained only one word (SD 

= .82) whereas the average elaborative response contained 11 words (SD = 15.89). More details 

about linguistic productivity coding can be found in Stolzenberg and colleagues (in press). 

Age. For analyses, victim age was re-coded into three groups: 5-10-year-olds (n = 40), 

11-14-year-olds (n = 47), and 15-17-year-olds (n = 47). In addition to creating similarly sized 

groups for comparison, this also allowed for meaningful comparisons. In the charging 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

13

jurisdiction, statutes often specify aggravating factors for felony distinctions and sentencing 

decisions if the victim is 14 years or younger. Furthermore, the age categories allow for 

comparisons between the youngest children, those who are either pre-teenagers or youngteenagers, and those who are older teenagers. 

Reliability 

 To assess reliability, coders blind to study hypotheses were trained on the coding guide, 

and one was selected as the gold standard coder. All coders independently coded 20% of the 

entire sample (a random selection of eligible transcripts which included coding of all questionanswer pairs within each selected transcript), and their codes were compared to that of the gold 

standard. The reliability of all variables had a minimum value of κ = .80, meaning there was a 

high level agreement across different coders. 

Results 

The results are organized by first assessing areas of credibility, and then examining the 

linguistic form of questions and answers. Across the 134 trial testimonies, there were 54,275 

substantive questions asked by either the prosecution (n = 33,746) or defense (n = 20,529). For 

all results, we examined proportion scores – we examined the proportion of attorneys’ questions 

and the proportion of children’s responses. Preliminary analyses revealed no effects of victim 

gender, case outcome, relationship between the victim and perpetrator, abuse severity, frequency 

of abuse, or the number of victims per case, on proportion analyses, and as such, these are not 

considered. All below analyses, unless otherwise specified, utilized repeated-measures ANOVAs 

with questioner entered as a repeated-measure (prosecution versus defense), and age entered as a 

between-subjects factor (5-10-year-olds, 11-14-year-olds, 15-17-year-olds). Bonferroni’s 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

14

corrections were used throughout to control for multiple comparisons, to control for error in 

interpreting significant results when running multiple comparisons. 

Credibility 

 Overwhelmingly, the questions attorneys used assessed at least one of the three areas of 

credibility (M = .89, SD = .11). Figure 1 displays the proportion of questions, by attorney, that 

inquired about each area of credibility. 

Figure 1. The proportion of prosecution and defense questions about suggestibility and honesty, 

plausibility, and consistency. 

To assess whether attorneys differed in what they focused on, and whether they varied 

their questioning by child’s age, we conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA (see Table 2) on 

the proportion they asked about each category of credibility (repeated-measures: proportion of 

suggestibility/honesty, plausibility, and consistency), by questioner (repeated-measures: 

prosecution versus defense), with age entered as a between-subjects factor (5-10-year-olds, 11-

14-year-olds, 15-17-year-olds). There were significant main effects of questioner, credibility 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Yes/No Forced-Choice Declarative Indirect Yes/No

Proportion of Questions

Prosecution Defense

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

15

area, and age. These main effects were subsumed by a significant two-way interaction of 

questioner by age, and a significant two-way interaction of questioner by credibility area. 

Table 2. 

ANOVA Results for the Proportion of Prosecutor and Defense Attorney Questioning by Each 

Area of Credibility and Child Age Group 

F p ηρ2

Age Group

 (5-10-year-olds, 11-14-yearolds, 15-17-year-olds)

3.46 .034 .053

Questioner

(Prosecution vs. Defense)

12.67 <.001 .093

Credibility Area 

(Plausibility, Suggestibility, 

Consistency)

433.52 <.001 .779

Age * Questioner 4.11 .019 .063

Age * Credibility Area 0.65 .011

Questioner*Credibility 

Area

45.21 <.001 .269

Age *Questioner 

*Credibility Area

0.84 ns .014

To assess the two-way interaction of questioner by age group, independent-samples ttests were conducted; while defense attorneys did not vary the proportion of credibility 

challenging questions by child age, the prosecutors did. Prosecutors asked the fewest credibility 

questions of the 5-10-year-olds (M = .82, SD = .14), compared to both the 11-14-year-olds (M = 

.91, SD = .09), t (85) = 3.50, p = .001, 95% CI for the mean [.04, .13], and 15-17-year-olds (M = 

.87, SD = .09), t (85) = 2.02, p = .047, 95% CI [.01, .10]. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

16

To assess the two-way interaction of questioner by credibility area, we conducted pairedsamples t-tests on the proportion of attorney questions by each area of credibility separately. 

While the prosecutors focused more on plausibility than did the defense, t (125) = 5.88, p < .001, 

95% CI [.08, .16], they focused less on suggestibility or honesty, t (125) = -5.83, p < .001, 95% 

CI [-.14, -.07], and consistency, t (125) = -.8.01, p < .001, 95% CI [-.11, -.06] (see Figure 1).

Overall though, a higher proportion of defense attorneys’ substantive questions focused 

on areas of credibility (M = .94, SD = .09) than did prosecutors (M = .88, SD = .10), t (125) = 

7.55, p < .001, 95% CI [.05, .08]. Five- to 10-year-olds (M = .84, SD = .13) received fewer 

credibility questions than did either 11-14-year-olds (M = .92, SD = .08), t (85) = -3.44, p = .001, 

95% CI [-.12, -.03], or 15-17-year-olds, t (85) = -1.99, p = .050, 95% CI [-.10, -.01]. Consistency 

questions were by far the most frequent (M = .82, SD = .14), occurring more often than 

plausibility questions (M = .46, SD = .15), t (133) = 18.45, p < .001, 95% CI [.32, .40], or 

suggestibility questions, t (133) = 36.94, p < .001, 95% CI [.58, .65]. Plausibility questions (M 

=.46, SD =.15) were also more common than were suggestibility/honesty questions (M = .21, SD 

= .11), t (133) = 13.46, p < .001, 95% CI [.22, .29]. 

More results are presented in Denne and colleagues (in press). 

Linguistic Form of Questions and Responses

The proportion of attorneys’ questions, by question type, is presented in Figure 2. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

17

Figure 2. The proportion of prosecution and defense questions that were invitations, whquestions, closed-ended questions, and linguistically suggestive questions. 

 Generally, invitations (e.g. “Tell me everything that happened.”) were rare, representing 

only 1% of attorneys’ questions. Wh- questions were more common, representing 24% of all 

questions. Here, the prosecutors were almost three times as likely to ask wh- question than were 

the defense. Closed-ended questions were by far the most common, representing 67% of all 

questions, proportionally, and commonly used by both prosecutors and defense attorneys. 

Linguistically suggestive questions represented only 8% of all questions, proportionally, but here 

the defense attorneys were over four times as likely to ask such questions as the prosecutors. 

As closed-ended questions were the most common, we were interested in exploring the 

differences in questioning and response patterns among the different types of closed-ended 

questions: yes/no, forced-choice, declarative, and indirect yes/no questions. In particular, we 

were interested in whether declarative or indirect yes/no questions would differ from yes/no and 

forced-choice questions, as declarative and indirect yes/no questions have rarely been examined. 

Figure 3 represents the proportion of attorneys’ questions by closed-ended question type. 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Invitations Wh- Closed-ended Suggestive

Proportion of Questions

Prosecution Defense

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

18

Figure 3. The proportion of yes/no, forced-choice, declarative, and indirect yes/no questions by 

prosecuting and defense attorneys. 

To assess closed-ended questioning patterns, we conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA 

on the proportion of these four subtypes. There was a main effect of question type, F (3, 396) = 

301.33, p < .001, ηρ2 = .71. Examining pairwise comparisons, yes/no questions (M = .31, DS = 

.06) occurred more often than any other closed-ended question type, declarative questions (M = 

.21, SD = .09) occurred more often than forced-choice (M = .04, SD = .02) or indirect yes/no 

questions (M = .11, SD = .05), and indirect yes/no questions occurred more often than forcedchoice questions. 

This was subsumed by a two-way interactions of question type by questioner, F (3, 369) 

= 47.72, p < .001, ηρ2 = .28. While the prosecution was more likely to ask yes/no questions (M = 

.32, SD = .07) than the defense (M = .28, SD = .13), the defense was more likely to ask 

declarative questions (M = .31, SD = .16) than the prosecution (M = .17, SD = .08). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

19

There was also a two-way interaction of question type by age, F (6, 369) = 4.41, p < .001, 

ηρ2 = .07. The youngest children (5-10-year-olds) were asked more yes/no questions (M = .33, 

SD = .07) and fewer declarative questions (M = .20, SD = .08), when compared to the 11-14-

year-olds (Myes/no = .29, SD = .06; Mdeclarative = .27, SD = .09) or 15-17-year-olds (Myes/no = .29, SD 

= .06; Mdeclarative = .25, SD = .09). 

Furthermore, the two-way interactions were subsumed by a three-way interaction of 

question type by questioner by age, F (6, 369) = 3.03, p = .007, ηρ2 = .05; see Figure 4. This was 

driven by differences in the yes/no and declarative questioning patterns, by attorney, by age of 

the child questioned. While prosecutors didn’t vary their rates of yes/no questions by age of the 

child, defense did -- asking the youngest children the most yes/no questions. Contrastingly, both 

attorneys asked the youngest children the fewest declarative questions. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

20

Figure 4. A three-way interaction of question-type by questioner by age group. Prosecutors and 

defense attorneys differed in the proportion with which they asked children yes/no questions; 

prosecutors did not vary how often they asked yes/no questions by age, whereas the defense 

asked the youngest children the most yes/no questions. Furthermore, prosecutors and defense 

attorneys both asked the youngest children the fewest declarative questions. 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Yes/No Forced-Choice Declarative Indirect Yes/No

Proportion of Questions

Prosecution

5-10-year-olds 11-14-year-olds 15-17-year-olds

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Yes/No Forced-Choice Declarative Indirect Yes/No

Proportion of Questions

Defense

5-10-year-olds 11-14-year-olds 15-17-year-olds

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

21

Response Patterns. Children’s responses were dependent upon the kind of question 

asked. When asked an invitation, children provided an elaborative response 90% of the time (the 

remaining responses were non-substantive, such as requests for clarifications or “I don’t know” 

responses). Similarly, to wh- questions, children provided elaborative responses 92% of the time 

(otherwise non-substantive responses). However, in response to closed-ended questions, children 

provided elaborative responses only 26% of the time, instead providing unelaborative responses 

68% of the time, and non-substantive responses only 6% of the time. In response to suggestive 

questions, children provided unelaboraitve responses 82% of the time, providing elaborative 

responses only 13% of the time and non-substantive requests for clarification or 

acknowledgements of not knowing or understanding, 5% of the time. 

Given the frequency of closed-ended questions, and our interest in better categorizing 

these questions and children’s responses to them, we conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA on 

the proportion of the three response types (repeated: non-substantive, unelaborative, elaborative), 

by the four subtypes of closed-ended questions. There was a main effect of response type, F (2, 

196) = 491.89, p < .001, ηρ2 = .83. Examining pairwise comparisons, unelaborative responses 

occurred more often (M = .52, SD = .10) than elaborative (M = .42, SD = .10) or non-substantive 

responses (M = .06, SD = .05), and elaborative responses occurred more often than did nonsubstantive responses. 

This effect was subsumed by a two-way interaction of response type by question type, F 

(6, 588) = 70.85, p < .001, ηρ2 = .42. Children provided the most unelaborative responses to 

declarative questions (M = .78, SD = .14), compared to yes/no (M = .69, SD = .14), forced-choice 

(M = .57, SD = .23), or indirect yes/no questions (M = .47, SD = .17). Furthermore, children 

provided the most non-substantive responses to indirect yes/no questions (M = .09, SD = .08) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

22

compared to yes/no (M = .07, SD = .06), forced-choice (M = .06, SD = .12), or declarative 

questions (M = .04, SD = .08). 

In addition, there was a two-way interaction of response type by questioner, F (2, 196) = 

7.39, p = .001, ηρ2 = .07. While children provided similar rates of elaborative responses to both 

attorneys (Mprosecution = .32, SDproseuction = .10; Mdefense = .32, SDdefense = .15), they provided more 

non-substantive responses to the defense (Mprosecution = .04, SDproseuction = .03; Mdefense = .08, 

SDdefense = .06), and more unelaborative responses to the prosecution (Mprosecution = .64, 

SDproseuction = .10; Mdefense = .60, SDdefense = .16). 

All of these effects were subsumed by a three-way interaction of response type by 

question type by questioner, F (6, 588) = 7.25, p < .001, ηρ2 = .07; see Figure 5. This was driven 

by how children responded to indirect yes/no questions; children provided more elaborative 

responses to indirect yes/no questions asked by the prosecution, whereas they provided 

proportionally more unelaborative responses to indirect yes/no questions asked by the defense. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

23

Figure 5. A three-way interaction of response type by speaker by question type. Children 

provided proportionally more elaborative responses to prosecutors asking indirect yes/no 

questions, whereas they provided proportionally more unelaborative responses to indirect yes/no 

questions from the defense. 

 

Questions as Echoes of Children’s Prior Statements

As a final assessment, we examined the pattern of echoing a child’s prior statement, as a 

means to either clarify what the child said or encourage elaboration. As a reminder, echoing was 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Yes/No Forced-Choice Declarative Indirect Yes/No

Proportion of Responses

Prosecution

Non-substantive Unelaborative Elaborative

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Yes/No Forced-Choice Declarative Indirect Yes/No

Proportion of Responses

Defense

Non-substantive Unelaborative Elaborative

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

24

coded for all questions. We intentionally compared declarative to all other question types, as we 

were particularly interested in whether this would happen more often for declarative questions. 

By conducting a paired-samples t-test, we observed that the proportion with which questions 

were echoes occurred more often to declarative questions (M = .09, SD = .11) than to nondeclarative questions (M = .03, SD = .04), t (132) = 7.16, p < .001, 95% CI [.04, .07]. However, 

echoing was rare, occurring on average to only 4% of questions (SD = .05). Furthermore, 

attorneys very rarely echoed children’s prior responses in their non-declarative questions 

(invitations 1%, wh- questions 3%, yes/no questions 3%, forced-choice questions 5%, indirect 

yes/no questions 3%, tag questions 2%, negative term questions 2%). 

As declarative questions were more likely to be echoing children’s statements, we were 

interested in assessing whether echoed declarative questions might elicit a higher proportion of 

elaborative responses than non-echoed declarative questions, suggesting that such questioning 

practices either facilitated children’s narratives or helped to clarify what had been stated. To do 

so, we conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA on the proportion of responses that were 

elaborative by whether those questions were echoed (repeated: echoed or not), and who asked 

the question, with age entered as a between-subjects factor. There were no effects. 

More analyses regarding the linguistic form of questions and responses can be found in 

Stolzenberg and colleagues (2020). 

Discussion of Findings 

We explored attorneys’ questioning of children in CSA cases to examine how attorneys 

are establishing and attacking child credibility, and whether these questioning practices differ to 

accommodate the developmental needs of children. In doing so, we assessed how attorneys 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

25

approach credibility in three areas (suggestibility and honestly, plausibility, and consistency), as 

well as the linguistic form of attorneys’ questions and children’s responses. 

Credibility Assessments 

All three areas of credibility were commonly asked about. However, consistency seemed 

to be embedded in nearly all questions in some capacity, representing 79% of prosecutor 

questions and 89% of defense questions. This is aligned with previous research suggesting that in 

courtroom investigations of CSA, attorneys are likely to repeat previously asked questions, 

asking children to re-respond to information already stated (Andrews et al., 2015). As children 

have disclosed many times prior to courtroom proceedings (Malloy et al., 2007), it is sensible 

that attorneys would need to clarify what has been said before, and whether it is consistent or 

inconsistent with what the child is now reporting. Yet, the proportion with which their 

questioning focused on prior statements was surprisingly high. In addition, given that 

consistency questions were so much more likely to occur than suggestibility or plausibility 

questions, this may mean that consistency issues take longer to resolve when trying to establish 

and attack children’s credibility. This could possibly be the result of the questioning process 

itself, as both defense and prosecution attorneys tend to use repetitive and suggestive questioning 

which generates more contradictions from children (Andrews et al., 2015). Indeed, as evidenced 

by the qualitative examples included in Table 1, many of the plausibility and consistency 

questions are highly suggestive in themselves. It is possible that these questions elicit 

contradictions from children which attorneys then address. 

Furthermore, we uncovered differences in attorneys’ practices. Prosecutors devoted more 

time to establishing plausibility than did the defense, at the expense of addressing 

suggestibility/honesty and consistency to which the defense gave proportionally more attention. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

26

This is likely because prosecutors are more motivated to establish details that build a strong case 

for the victim, given that the coherence of their victim’s narrative is central to convincing the 

jury that abuse is credible (Pennington & Hastie, 1992). These findings suggest prosecutors may

be missing an opportunity to establish children as honest and uninfluenced.

Finally, we examined developmental differences in credibility questions. Here, attorney 

questioning did reflect some level of developmental sensitivity. Prosecutors asked the fewest 

credibility questions of the youngest children, while defense attorneys did not differ in the 

proportion of credibility questions by the age of the child. These findings suggest prosecutors are 

more sensitive to developmental differences. 

Linguistic Form of Questions and Responses 

The minority of questions could be considered open, accounting for only 25% of 

questioning. Furthermore, from our data, children only elaborate if given the opportunity through 

open-prompts. While children provided elaborative responses over 90% of the time to openended questions, they provided elaborative responses to closed-ended questions 26% of the time 

and to linguistically suggestive closed-ended questions (tag and negative term) only 13% of the 

time. As open-ended questions accounted for only a fourth of attorneys’ questions, the majority 

of children’s responses were unelaborative. 

Closed-ended questions accounted for three-out-of-four attorney questions, further 

justifying assessing how closed-ended questions may differ from one another. In distinguishing 

among closed-ended questions, we examined declarative and indirect yes/no questions, as well as 

how children’s responses varied according to these forms of questions. We found that declarative 

questions were common, representing 21% of overall questions. We also found that indirect 

yes/no questions were common, describing 11% of all questions asked. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

27

We were the first to examine how children respond to declarative and indirect yes/no 

questions, in comparison to other closed-ended question types (yes/no and forced-choice). We 

observed evidence that both of these questions may be more problematic when compared to 

traditional yes/no or forced-choice questions: children provided the most unelaborative and 

fewest elaborative responses to declarative questions, and the most non-substantive responses to 

indirect yes/no questions, when compared to forced-choice and traditional yes/no questions. 

Providing a non-substantive response likely signifies that children are struggling with the asked 

question (by either requesting clarification, expressing misunderstanding, or stating a lack of 

knowledge). Providing unelaborated assents or dissents can also be problematic, as researchers 

have demonstrated that children are likely to provide incomplete responses to closed-ended 

questions in laboratory settings where the ground truth is known (Stolzenberg, McWilliams & 

Lyon, 2017b). 

We found echoing, or using the child’s previous words to facilitate asking the next 

question, to be quite rare in our sample, comprising only 4% of questions on average, and fewer 

than 10% of declarative questions. As such, declarative questions were nearly always statements 

that were posed as a question, and not a request for clarification or elaboration. 

Given children’s response patterns to both declarative questions and yes/no questions in 

the current study, children may struggle with them more compared to other forms of closedended questions. While there has been prior work on indirect yes/no questions (Evans, 

Stolzenberg, Lee, & Lyon, 2014), we know of no experimental work assessing how children 

respond to declarative questions in the laboratory, similar to what one might find in criminal 

settings. This is a clear avenue for future research – to assess how children respond to declarative 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

28

questions, particularly while varying the intent of the speaker (to either clarify a prior statement, 

encourage elaboration, or potentially mislead). 

Attorney Differences. While prosecutors did ask more open-ended questions than did 

the defense, two-thirds of their questions were closed-ended. Prosecutors may shy away from 

asking open-ended questions because they want to maintain control of their witness (Myers, 

1986), and because the legal system places great value on expediency. As has been observed in 

the laboratory, an effective strategy for attorneys may be the use of pairing closed-ended with 

open directives afterwards (Stolzenberg et al., 2017a). For example, an attorney who is 

concerned about maintaining control of their witness, and processing through the child’s 

narrative efficiently, might begin by narrowing the testimony to the point of interest (e.g. “Did he 

tell you to keep it a secret?”) and then ask the child to elaborate in their own words by asking a 

focused, yet still open, prompt (e.g. “What did he say?”). Such practices might facilitate the need 

of the prosecutor to direct the testimony, while also providing children the best opportunity to 

provide accurate accounts. We recommend this as an avenue for future research to examine. 

Developmental Sensitivity. There were few differences in questioning, or response 

patterns based on the age of the child victim. However, attorneys did vary the proportion with 

which they asked declarative questions by age, asking the fewest declarative questions to the 

youngest children. This may signify that on some level, attorneys recognize potential problems 

with declarative questions, particularly given the rate with which defense attorneys utilized these 

questions (approximately a third of their total questions). Yet, even when attorneys did use 

declarative questions to echo children’s previous words, this did not influence elaboration; 

children did not provide more elaborative responses to echoed declaratives compared to nonechoed declaratives. This may signify that children will respond to declarative statements with 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

29

high rates of assenting, regardless of the intent of the question. Our findings suggest that

attorneys are asking children questions which may be developmentally inappropriate both 

linguistically (Brenan & Brennan, 1988; Zajac & Cannan, 2009) and, as our research suggests, in 

content. This lack of developmental sensitivity alone may be undermining the child's credibility 

and the accuracy of children’s report. 

A clear limitation of the present data is that it does not address the ground truth, or what 

really occurred, limiting the confidence with which we can assess how questioning practices may 

undermine children’s ability to provide accurate reports. More laboratory research is needed to 

validate certain observations in terms of children’s accuracy. 

Implications 

First, there are implications for future research. Researchers should consider interviewing 

attorneys in similar cases, to assess both how they learn to interview children, and what their aim 

to do when questioning children in court. Such data could clarify attorney intentions and 

methods, potentially illuminating discrepancies (between what they believe works well and what 

actually works). In addition, future research can continue to examine mock jurors’ perceptions of 

similar cases, to determine how specific factors (such as a child’s recalling inconsistent details) 

may influence children’s credibility. Finally, researchers can continue to examine children’s 

responses to various question types in the laboratory, to work alongside practitioners to develop 

effective questioning techniques that work for the legal system. For example, examining how 

children respond to declarative questions in the laboratory would help clarify whether these 

questions are, indeed, problematic for children. 

Second, there are practical implications for children’s involvement in legal cases. Ideally, 

as has been done in other countries, children’s involvement in pre-trial interviews, such as early 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

30

recorded forensic interviews, would suffice for their primary involvement in reporting during 

criminal investigations. However, this is unrealistic given the confrontation clause in the United 

States Constitution. In addition, when children must testify, it would be ideal to ask them to 

narrate their abuse using primarily open-ended questions. However, such a recommendation is 

impractical for legal settings, where expediency is valued and attorneys are focused on 

controlling the narrative of witnesses, especially given that children have previously disclosed 

repeatedly, and attorneys know much about the child’s narrative before trial. As such, closedended questions, and questions about credibility, are likely to occur with regularity when 

children testify in the United States. 

However, the present study indicates that not all closed-ended questions are created 

equal; both declarative and indirect yes/no questions produce response patterns more comparable 

with tag (e.g. “He hit you, right?”) and negative term questions (e.g. “Didn’t he hit you?”). As 

such, we recommend that attorneys limit the use of these questions, instead asking focused whquestions (e.g. “Where on your body did he hit you?”) when truly open questions (e.g. “What 

happened next?”) are inappropriate or inspecific. When attorneys must ask closed-ended 

questions, we recommend they stick to simple yes/no questions, and pair them with open followup questions (e.g. “Did he hit you?” “Yes” “What happened next?”). 

In addition, the current findings indicate that issues of consistency, or inconsistency, 

dominate in courtroom investigations of CSA, whereas issues of suggestive influence, honesty, 

and plausibility receive significantly less attention. Here, we recommend that attorneys 

systematically inquire about children’s motives for delaying disclosure, disclosing, and what 

others have said to children about disclosing, but do so using non-suggestive questioning (e.g. 

“What did he say about X?”). In addition, when attorneys must elicit descriptions of abuse and 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

31

are concerned about plausibility, they should again aim to ask open questions, focused whquestions, or if necessary, non-leading yes/no questions. More laboratory work can investigate 

the best methods for eliciting particular or specific details from children (e.g. body placement). 

Furthermore, according to the kinds of credibility questions observed, children may not 

be developmentally mature enough to answer the questions asked of them - a tactic that may in 

itself be undermining credibility. Attorneys should aim to ask questions as simply as possible, 

avoiding unnecessary words, phrases, and concepts. In addition, children should be encouraged 

to express misunderstanding and lack of knowledge, as well as correct attorneys when they 

misspeak (although we must acknowledge that children, especially young children, may still be 

reluctant, or too cognitively taxed, to do these things in a courtroom context). 

Researchers should work alongside prosecuting attorneys to develop effective training 

methods, as little is known about how attorneys learn how to question children in these cases. 

From our data, there is a clear need to educate attorneys and courts alike about children’s 

inconsistencies in relaying their accounts of child sexual abuse – what is expected, what is 

reasonable, and what is problematic. Such training must be developed in collaboration with 

attorneys who have practical experience of litigation in this field. While the present project is 

only the first step in this important line of work, a continuation of this line of research can help to 

better establish courtroom techniques that can minimize children’s errors while best facilitating 

the necessary involvement of children in legal settings. Doing so can create more intentional 

practices when children must be questioned in trials. Furthermore, doing so can contribute to a 

greater societal value of achieving a fair trial – one which can allow the jury to hear the child’s 

evidence and weigh it appropriately. The ultimate goal should be to give the defendant the 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

32

protections to which they are constitutionally entitled while simultaneously protecting child 

victims and witnesses; a balance that can be difficult to achieve. 

References

Ahern, E. C., Stolzenberg, S. N., McWilliams, K., & Lyon, T. D. (2016). The effects of secret 

instructions and yes/no questions on maltreated and nonmaltreated children’s reports of 

aminor transgression. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34, 784-802. doi:10.1002/bsl.2277 

Andrews, S. J., & Lamb, M. E. (2016). How do lawyers examine and cross‐examine children 

in Scotland? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 953-971. doi:10.1002/acp.3286 

Andrews, S. J., Lamb, M. E., & Lyon, T. D. (2015). The effects of question repetition on 

responses when prosecutors and defense attorneys question children alleging sexual 

abuse in court. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 559-570. doi:10.1037/lhb0000152 

Bays, J., & Chadwick, D. (1993). Medical diagnosis of the sexually abused child. Child Abuse 

and Neglect: The International Journal, 17, 91-110. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(93)9001-S 

Brennan, M. & Brennan, R. (1988). Strange language: Child victim witnesses under crossexamination. Wagga Wagga, Australia: CSU Literary Studies Network. 

Brubacher, S. P., & La Rooy, D. (2014). Witness recall across repeated interviews in a case of 

repeated abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 202-211. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.06.010 

Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and 

synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403-439. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.403 

Ceci, S. J., Loftus, E. F., Leichtman, M. D., & Bruck, M. (1994). The possible role of source 

misattributions in the creation of false beliefs among preschoolers. International Journal 

of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 42, 304-320. DOI: 10.1080/00207149408409361 

Connolly, D. A., Gordon, H. M., Woiwod, D. M., & Price, H. L. (2016). What children recall 

about a repeated event when one instance is different from the others. Developmental 

Psychology, 52, 1038-1051. DOI: 10.1037/dev0000137. 

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004).

Denne, E., Sullivan, C., Ernest, K., & Stolzenberg, S. N. (In Press). Assessing children’s 

credibility in courtroom investigations of alleged child sexual abuse: Suggestibility, 

plausibility and consistency. Child Maltreatment. doi: 10.1177/1077559519872825 

Evans, A. D., Stolzenberg, S. N., Lee, K., & Lyon, T. D. (2014). Young children's difficulty with 

indirect speech acts: Implications for questioning child witnesses. Behavioral Sciences & 

the Law, 32, 775-788. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2142 

Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child sexual abuse. New York: Guildford Press. 

Ghetti, S., Goodman, G. S., Eisen, M. L., Qin, J., & Davis, S. L. (2002). Consistency in 

children’s reports of sexual and physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 977-995. 

doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00367-8 

Hanna, K., Davies, E., Crothers, C. & Henderson, E. (2012). Questioning child witnesses in New 

Zealand’s criminal justice system: Is cross-examination fair? Psychiatry, Psychology and 

Law, 19, 530-546. doi:10.1080/13218719.2011.615813

Henderson, Andrews, & Lamb (2019). Examining children in English High Courts with and 

without implementation of reforms authorized in Section 28 of the Youth Justice and 

Criminal Evidence Act. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33, 252-264. 

doi:10.1002/acp.3472 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

33

Klemfuss, J. Z., Quas, J. A., & Lyon, T. D. (2014). Attorneys' questions and children's 

productivity in child sexual abuse criminal trials. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 780-

788. doi:10.1002/acp.3048 

Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., Stewart, H. & Mitchell, S. (2003). Age 

differences in young children’s responses to open-ended invitations in the course of 

forensic interviews. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 926-934. 

doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.5.926 

Leclerc, B., Proulx, J., & Beauregard, E. (2009). Examining the modus operandi of sexual 

offenders against children and its practical implications. Aggression and Violent 

Behavior, 14, 5-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2008.08.001 

Lyon, T. D. & Stolzenberg, S. N. (2015). Children’s memory for conversations about sexual 

abuse: Legal and psychological implications. Roger Williams University Law Review, 19, 

411-450. 

Malloy, L. C., Brubacher, S. P., & Lamb, M. E. (2013). “Because she’s one who listens” children 

discuss disclosure recipients in forensic interviews. Child Maltreatment, 18, 245-251. 

doi: 10.1177/1077559513497250 

Malloy, L. C., & Lamb, M. E. (2010). Biases in judging victims and suspects whose statements 

are inconsistent. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 46-48. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9211-y 

Malloy, L. C., Lyon, T. D., & Quas, J. A. (2007). Filial Dependency and Recantation of Child 

Sexual Abuse Allegations. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent 

Psychiatry, 46, 162-170. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000246067.77953.f7

Malloy, L. & Stolzenberg, S. N. (2019). Questioning kids: Applying the lessons from 

developmentally sensitive investigative interviews to the research context. Journal of 

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60, 325-327. Doi:10.1111/jcpp.13005 

Myers, J. E. (1986). Child witnesses: Techniques for direct examination, cross-examination, and 

impeachment. The Pacific Law Journal, 18, 801-942. 

Myers, J. E., Bays, J., Becker, J., Berliner, L., Corwin, D. L. & Saywitz, K. J. (1989). Expert 

testimony in child sexual abuse litigation. Nebraska Law Review, 68, 1-145. Retrieved 

from: 

https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nebklr68&div=8&g_sent=1&casa

_token=8lXfwAIW0B8AAAAA:Moh8thYq_h8AcY-da23cTYhRlrG1g11O9p--

3oba3W4E3e3QGcT6fIjfbrrElSJpyRV-fA

Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror 

decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189-206. 

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189 

Quas, J. A., Stolzenberg, S. N., & Lyon, T. D. (2018). The effects of promising to tell the truth, 

the putative confession, and recall and recognition questions on maltreated and nonmaltreated children’s disclosures of a minor transgression. Journal of Experimental Child 

Psychology, 166, 266-279. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2017.08.014 

Roberts, K. P., & Blades, M. (1999). Children's memory and source monitoring of real-life and 

televised events. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20, 575-596. doi: 

10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00030-1 

Schuman, D. C. (1986). False allegations of physical and sexual abuse. Bulletin of the American 

Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 14, 5-21. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stolzenberg, Children’s Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials

34

Stolzenberg, S. N., & Lyon, T. D. (2014a). Evidence summarized in attorney’s closing 

arguments predicts acquittals in criminal trials of child sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment,

19, 119-129. doi:10.1177/1077559514539388 

Stolzenberg, S. N. & Lyon, T. D. (2014b). How attorneys question children about the dynamics 

of sexual abuse and disclosure in criminal trials. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 

19-30. doi:10.1037/a0035000 

Stolzenberg, S. N., McWilliams, K., & Lyon, T. D. (2017a). The effects of the hypothetical 

putative confession and negatively-valenced yes/no questions on maltreated and nonmaltreated children’s disclosures of a minor transgression. Child Maltreatment, 22, 167-

173. doi:10.1177/1077669617773734 

Stolzenberg, S. N., McWilliams, K., & Lyon, T. D. (2017b). Spatial language, question type, and 

young children’s ability to describe clothing: Legal and developmental implications. Law 

and Human Behavior, 41, 398-409. doi:10.1037/lhb0000237 

Stolzenberg, S. N., Morse, S. M., Haverkate, D. L., & Garcia-Johnson, A. M. (2020). The 

Prevalence of Declarative and Indirect Yes/No Questions when Children Testify in 

Criminal Cases of Child Sexual Abuse in the United States. Applied Cognitive 

Psychology, 34, 194-204. doi: 10.1002/acp.3607

Zajac, R. & Cannan, P. (2009). Cross-examination of sexual assault complainants: A 

developmental comparison. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 16, 36-54. 

doi:10.13218710802620448 

Zajac, R. Gross, J. & Hayne, H. (2003). Asked and answered: Questioning children in the 

courtroom. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 10, 199-209. 

doi:10.1375/pplt.2003.10.1.199 

Zajac, R., O’Neill, S. & Hayne, H. (2012). Disorder in the courtroom? Child witnesses under 

cross-examination. Developmental Review, 32, 181-204. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.006 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.