{"@type": "dcat:Dataset", "accessLevel": "public", "bureauCode": ["011:21"], "contactPoint": {"@type": "vcard:Contact", "fn": "Open Data Office of Justice Programs (USDOJ)", "hasEmail": "mailto:opendata@usdoj.gov"}, "dataQuality": false, "description": "The goal of this project was to investigate the effects of\r\nchildren's out-of-court hearsay statements on jurors' perceptions of\r\nwitness credibility and defendant guilt. To accomplish this goal,\r\nthree studies were conducted. The studies represented a series of\r\nincreasingly ecologically valid investigations: mock jurors'\r\nperceptions of children's live and hearsay statements about a mock\r\ncrime (Study 1), mock jurors' perceptions of real child sexual abuse\r\nvictims' hearsay statements (Study 2), and actual jurors' perceptions\r\nof real child sexual abuse victims' hearsay statements (Study 3). In\r\nthese contexts, \"hearsay statements\" are the repetition of a child's\r\nout-of-court statements in a court trial, either via a videotaped\r\nrecording of the child's testimony in a forensic interview with a\r\nsocial worker or as described by an adult (the social worker or a\r\npolice officer) who interviewed the child. The three studies permitted\r\nresearchers to examine factors that jurors use to evaluate the\r\nreliability of children's hearsay evidence. The mock crime in Study 1\r\nwas touching the child on the stomach, nose, or neck. Jurors were\r\ninstructed to consider those acts as if they were battery against a\r\nchild. In Study 1, elaborate mock trials concerning the above mock\r\ncrime were conducted under three trial conditions: (1) the child\r\ntestified live in court, (2) a videotape of a simulated forensic\r\ninterview with the child was presented, or (3) adult hearsay was\r\npresented (i.e., a social worker testified about what the child had\r\nsaid in the simulated forensic interview). A total of 370 mock jurors\r\nparticipated in Study 1, which was conducted in Sacramento County,\r\nCalifornia. In Study 2, videotapes of actual forensic interviews from\r\nreal child sexual abuse cases were incorporated into mock trials\r\ninstead of having live child testimony. The last two trial conditions\r\nin Study 2 were the same as those for Study 1, except that a police\r\nofficer provided the adult hearsay testimony instead of a social\r\nworker. For Study 2, 170 mock jurors served on 15 main juries, which\r\nwere held in Sacramento County, California. For both Studies 1 and 2,\r\npre- and post-deliberation questionnaires were completed by mock\r\njurors to ascertain their views on the credibility of the child and\r\nadult testimonies, the importance of various pieces of evidence, and\r\nthe guilt of the defendant. Demographic questionnaires were also\r\nfilled out before the mock trials. In Study 3, real jurors from actual\r\nchild sexual abuse trials were surveyed regarding their judgments of\r\nchild and adult testimonies. The three trial conditions that were\r\npresent in Studies 1 and 2 (live child testimony, videotaped\r\ntestimony, and adult hearsay testimony) were also experienced by the\r\nStudy 3 participants. These jurors also indicated the importance of\r\nvarious types of evidence and provided demographic data. A total of\r\n248 jurors representing 43 juries from Sacramento County, California,\r\nand Maricopa County, Arizona, participated in Study 3. This collection\r\nincludes aggregated data prepared from the Study 3 data to provide\r\nmean values for each of the 42 juries, as calculated from the\r\nindividual juror responses. Data for one jury were eliminated from the\r\naggregated data by the principal investigators. Variables from the\r\ndemographic questionnaire for Studies 1 and 2 include trial condition,\r\nrespondent's age, gender, marital status, occupation, ethnic\r\nbackground, religious orientation, and highest grade attained in\r\nschool, if the respondent supported the death penalty, if the\r\nrespondent was ever a victim of crime, number of children the\r\nrespondent had, if the respondent was a United States citizen, if the\r\nrespondent's native language was English, and if he or she had ever\r\nbeen a police officer, a convicted felon, a lawyer, or a judge. The\r\npre-deliberation questionnaire for Study 1 asked jurors if they felt\r\nthat the defendant was guilty, and how confident they were of the\r\ndefendant's guilt or innocence. Jurors were also asked to assess the\r\naccuracy of various facts as given in the social worker's interview of\r\nthe child and the child's statements in the taped interview, and what\r\nthe likelihood was of the child's being influenced by the social\r\nworker, prosecutor, and/or defense attorney. Questions about the trial\r\nincluded the juror's assessment of the defendant, the social worker,\r\nand the research assistant. Jurors were also asked about the influence\r\nof various factors on their decisions regarding whether to believe the\r\nindividuals in the case. Jurors' open-ended comments were coded on the\r\nmost important factors in believing or doubting the child or the\r\nsocial worker, the most important evidence in the case, and whether\r\nanything could have been done to make the trial more\r\nfair. Post-deliberation questions in Study 1 included whether the\r\ndefendant was guilty, how confident the juror was of the defendant's\r\nguilt or innocence regarding various charges in the case, and the\r\nfinal verdict of the jury. Questions similar to those in Study 1 were\r\nasked in the pre-deliberation questionnaire for Study 2, which also\r\nincluded respondents' opinions of the police officer, the mother, the\r\ndoctor, and the use of anatomical dolls. The Study 2 post-deliberation\r\nquestionnaire included questions on whether the defendant was guilty,\r\nhow confident the juror was of the defendant's guilt or innocence, and\r\nthe juror's assessment of the social worker's videotaped interview and\r\nthe police officer's testimony. Variables from the Study 3 juror\r\nsurvey include the county/state where the trial was held, the juror's\r\nage, gender, ethnic background, and highest grade attained in school,\r\nif the juror supported the death penalty, if he or she was ever a\r\nvictim of crime, and the amount of contact he or she had with\r\nchildren. Questions about the trial include the number of children the\r\ndefendant was charged with abusing, the main child's age and gender,\r\nif a videotape was shown at trial, who interviewed the child on the\r\nvideotape, the impact of seeing the videotape on the juror's decision\r\nto believe the child, the number of children who testified at the\r\ntrial, and if the child was involved in a custody dispute. Additional\r\nquestions focused on the defendant's relationship to the main child,\r\nwho the first person was that the child told about the abuse, if the\r\nmain child testified in court, the most important evidence in the case\r\nin the opinion of the juror, the jury's verdict, and how fair the\r\njuror considered the trial. Finally, jurors were asked about the\r\ninfluence of various factors on their decision to believe or doubt the\r\nindividuals in the case. Data in Study 3 also include coded open-ended\r\nresponses to several questions. Variables provided for the Study 3\r\naggregated data consist of the calculated mean values for each of the\r\n42 juries for most of the variables in the Study 3 juror survey data.", "distribution": [{"@type": "dcat:Distribution", "accessURL": "https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02791.v1", "title": "Children's Out-of-Court Statements:  Effects of Hearsay on Jurors' Decisions in Sacramento County, California, and Maricopa County, Arizona, 1994-1997"}], "identifier": "3477", "issued": "2002-12-09T00:00:00", "keyword": ["child abuse", "evidence", "hearsay evidence", "juries", "sexual abuse", "testimony", "trials", "witness credibility"], "language": ["eng"], "license": "http://www.usa.gov/publicdomain/label/1.0/", "modified": "2006-03-30T00:00:00", "programCode": ["011:060"], "publisher": {"@type": "org:Organization", "name": "National Institute of Justice", "subOrganizationOf": {"acronym": "OJP", "id": 22, "name": "Office of Justice Programs", "parentOrganization": {"acronym": "DOJ", "id": 10, "name": "Department of Justice"}, "parentOrganizationID": 10}}, "title": "Children's Out-of-Court Statements:  Effects of Hearsay on Jurors' Decisions in Sacramento County, California, and Maricopa County, Arizona, 1994-1997"}