Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-Representation: Pro se Cross-Examination and Revisiting Trauma upon Child Witnesses

  • Interdisciplinary Review
  • Published:
International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the United States, the right to confront one’s accusers at trial is one of the key components of the adversarial legal process. As a part of this process, defendants are permitted to represent themselves if they decide to do so voluntarily (Faretta v. California 1975). As cross-examination of witnesses is considered essential to the adversarial legal system, child victims can be faced with being personally cross-examined by defendants. In cases involving vulnerable witnesses, such as child abuse victims, there is concern that being cross-examined by the defendant can be highly problematic and create more trauma over and above being cross-examined by a defense attorney. In the United States, there are no laws that explicitly forbid defendants from cross-examining their own victims, and decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. We discuss relevant legal traditions in the United States, laws and procedures followed by other countries that use the adversarial system, current psychological research on cross-examination of child witnesses, the need for further research, and recommendations for ways the United States can protect the rights, well-being, and personal security of vulnerable children.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Terms vary and include “party in person,” “litigant in person,” “defendant pro se,” and “unrepresented defendant,” all of which indicate that the defendant has chosen not to be represented by an attorney.

  2. Depending on the specific language, the Scandinavian term is Barnahus or Barnehus.

  3. In some cases, children awaiting testimony have in fact been murdered (Waldman 1999).

  4. Some extant experimental analogues to simulated investigations and courtrooms may be controversial. This includes studies in which parents have been “offenders” who in some experimental conditions have been instructed to encourage their children to lie to an interviewer; these studies, however, are conducted with safeguards to the children as approved by appropriate Institutional Review Boards.

References

  • Adams, M., Goodman-Delahunty, J., James, G., McColl, R., Shaw, J., & Tidbury, M. (2003). Questioning of complainants by unrepresented accused in sexual offence trials (NSW law reform commission report 101). Retrieved from New South Wales website: http://www.lawreform.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Publications/Reports/Report-101.pdf

  • Alink, L. R. A., Cicchetti, D., Kim, J., & Rogosh, F. A. (2012). Longitudinal associations among child maltreatment, social functioning, and cortisol regulation. Developmental Psychology, 48, 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. A. (1997). The sixth amendment: Protecting defendants’ rights at the expense of child victims. John Marshall Law Review, 30, 767–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applegate v. Commonwealth, 299 S.W.3d 266 (Ky. 2009).

  • Arizona v. Padilla, 364 P. 3d 479 (Ariz. App. 2015).

  • Bala, N., Lee, J., & McNamara, E. (2001). Children as witnesses : Understanding their capacities, needs, and experiences. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 10, 41–68. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009429602266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batterman-Faunce, J. M., & Goodman, G. S. (1993). Effects of context on the accuracy and suggestibility of child witnesses. In G. S. Goodman & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving children's testimony (pp. 301–330). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Loss, sadness and depression (Vol. III). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breyer, S. (2015). The court and the world: American law and the new global realities. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodsky, S. L. (2004). Coping with cross-examination and other pathways to effective testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cashmore, J. (2008). Innovative procedures for child witnesses. In H. L. Wescott, G. M. Davies, & R. H. C. Bull (Eds.), Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (pp. 203–218). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassidy, M. (2016). Ex-minuteman Chris Simcox found guilty of child molestation. The Republic. Retrieved from http://www.azcentral.com.

  • Child Victims’ and Child Witnesses’ Rights, 18, U.S.C. § 3509 (2011).

  • Cicchetti, D., Rogosh, F. A., Gunnar, M. R., & Toth, S. L. (2010). The differential impacts of early physical and sexual abuse and internalizing problems on daytime cortisol rhythm in school-aged children. Child Development, 81, 252–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01393.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2005). Child maltreatment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 409–438. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, K., Harker, N., & Antonopoulos, G. A. (2017). The impact of the registered intermediary on adults’ perceptions of child witnesses: Evidence from a mock cross examination. European Journal of Criminal Policy Research, 23, 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9314-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comment. (1973). The right to appear pro se: The Constitution and the courts. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 64, 240–249. https://doi.org/10.2307/1142993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, E. W. (1852). The advocate, his training, practice, rights, and duties. London: John Crockford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Criminal Code, R.S.C, § 486.3 (1985).

  • Criminal Procedure Act 51 § 107A (1977).

  • Cronch, L. E., Viljoen, J. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2006). Forensic interviewing in child sexual cases: Current techniques and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.07.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, T., & Whitcomb, D. (2017). The practice of prosecuting child maltreatment: Results of an online survey of prosecutors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 69, 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, E., Henderson, E., & Seymour, F. W. (1997). In the interests of justice? The cross-examination of child complainants of sexual abuse in criminal proceedings. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 4, 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719709524912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G. M., & Wescott, H. L. (1999). Interviewing child witnesses under the memorandum of good practice: A research review. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. L., & Bottoms, B. L. (2002). Effects of social support on children’s eyewitness reports: A test of the underlying mechanism. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 185–215. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014692009941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorsen, N. (2005). The relevance of foreign legal materials in U.S. constitution cases: A conversation between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 3, 519–541. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moi032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, C., & Patton, W. (2002). The experiences of child complainants of sexual abuse in the criminal justice system. Retrieved from Criminology Research Council – Australian Institute of Criminology website: http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/eastwood.pdf.

  • Eastwood, C., Patton, W., & Stacy, H. (1998). Child sexual abuse & the criminal justice system (Trends & Issues Series No. 99). Retrieved from Australian Institute of Criminology website: https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi099

  • Edwards, V., Dube, S., Felitti, V., & Anda, R. (2007). It’s OK to ask about past abuse. American Psychologist, 62, 327–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X62.4.327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, J. (2007). The great engine that couldn’t: Science, mistaken identifications, and the limits of cross-examination. Stetson Law Review, 36, 727–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evidence Act (New Zealand), § 23F (1908).

  • Evidence Act (New Zealand), § 95 (2006).

  • Fan, M. (2014). Adversarial justice’s casualties: Defending victim-witness protection. Boston College Law Review, 55, 775–801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).

  • Fed. R. Crim. Proc. Rule 44.

  • Fed. R. Evid. Rule 611(a).

  • Fields v. Murray, 49 F.3d 1024 (4th Cir. 1995).

  • Fogliati, R., & Bussey, K. (2014). The effects of cross-examination on children's reports of neutral and transgressive events. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19, 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogliati, R., & Bussey, K. (2015). The effects of cross-examination on children's coached reports. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21, 10–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, D. A. (2018). Child maltreatment and adult legal attitudes: The role of adult attachment and psychopathology. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Davis, CA.

  • Goldfarb, D. A., & Goodman, G. S. (2014). Cross-examination’s big effect on the criminal system’s smallest witnesses: How the judiciary can alleviate the negative effects of cross-examination. Chronicle. London: International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, G. S., Bottoms, B. L., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Rudy, L. (1991a). Children’s testimony about a stressful event: Improving children’s reports. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1, 69–99. https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.1.1.05chi.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, G. S., Levine, M., Melton, G. B., & Ogden, D. (1991b). Craig v. Maryland. Amicus brief to the US Supreme Court on behalf of the American Psychological Association. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 13–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, G. S., Levine, M., & Melton, G. B. (1992a). The best evidence produces the best law. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0104480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, G. S., Taub, E. P., Jones, D. P. H., England, P., Port, L. K., Rudy, L., & Prado, L. (1992b). Testifying in criminal court: Emotional effects on child sexual assault victims. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(5), Serial No. 229. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, G. S., Tobey, A. E., Batterman-Faunce, J. M., Orcutt, H., Thomas, S., Shapiro, C., & Sachsenmaier, T. (1998). Face-to-face confrontation: Effects of closed-circuit technology on children’s eyewitness testimony and jurors’ decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 165–203. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025742119977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Bulkley, J., & Shapiro, C. (1999). Innovations for child witnesses: A national survey. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 255–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.2.255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., & Ogle, C. M. (2009). Child maltreatment and memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 325–351. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, C. T., Cousineau, D. F., & Verdun-Jones, S. N. (1980). Appearance without counsel: Self-representation in the criminal courts of the United States and Canada. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 4, 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.1980.9688707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S., & Sales, B. (2008). Courtroom modifications for child witnesses. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hansard, L. (1998) at col 1353. Retrieved from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980212/text/80212-27.htm

  • Hayes, D., & Bunting, L. (2013). “Just be brave”—The experiences of young witnesses in criminal proceedings in Northern Ireland. Child Abuse Review, 22, 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, J. (1997). System intervention trauma to child sexual abuse victims following disclosure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012004002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Horowitz, D. (2006). Dynamics of forensic interviews with suspected victims who do not disclose abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 753–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.10.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks-Bey v. United States, 649 A2d 569 (D.C. 1994).

  • Hobbs, S. D., Goodman, G. S., Block, S. D., Oran, D., Quas, J. A., Park, A., & Baumrind, N. (2014). Child maltreatment victims’ attitudes about appearing in dependency and criminal courts. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970).

  • J. Papa Rao vs Government of A.P. and Ors., 2002 (5) ALD 748, 2003 (1) ALT 357.

  • Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938).

  • Jonker, G., & Swanzen, R. (2007). Intermediary services for child witnesses testifying in South African criminal courts. International Journal of Human Rights, 6, 90–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judiciary Act, 1 Stat. 73, § 35 (1789).

  • Klemfuss, J. Z., Milojevich, H. M., Yim, I. S., Rush, E. B., & Quas, J. A. (2013). Stress at encoding, context at retrieval, and children’s narrative content. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.07.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klika, J. B., & Conte, J. R. (Eds.). (2017). The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemons, S. (2016). Ex-minuteman leader’s desire to personally cross-examine his child victims could go before U.S. Supreme Court. Phoenix New Times. Retrieved from http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com

  • LeSage, P. J., & Code, M. (2008). Report of the review of large and complex criminal case procedure . Retrieved from Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General website: https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/lesage_code/

  • Lininger, T. (2005). Bearing the cross. Fordham Law Review, 74, 1353–1423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, P. (1982). The Faretta principle: Self representation versus the right to counsel. William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications, 550–573. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/565

  • Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).

  • Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895).

  • McEwen, B. S., & Gianaros, P. J. (2011). Stress- and allostasis-induced brain plasticity. Annual Review of Medicine, 62, 431–435. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-052209-100430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984).

  • Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983).

  • Müller, K., & Tait, M. (1997). The child witness and the accused’s right to cross-examination. Tydskrif Vir die Suid Afrikaanse, 3, 519–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J. E. B. (1992). Evidence in child abuse and neglect cases (2nd ed., Vol 1). New York: Wiley.

  • Myers, J. E. B. (1993). A call for forensically relevant research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17, 573–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(93)90079-K.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J. E. B. (2017). Cross-examination: A defense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23, 472–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myklebust, T. (2017). The Nordic model of handling children’s testimonies. In S. Johansson, K. Stefansen, E. Bakketieg, & A. Kaldal (Eds.), Collaborating against child abuse (pp. 97–119). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nathanson, R., & Saywitz, K. J. (2003). The effects of the courtroom context on children’s memory and anxiety. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 31, 67–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318530303100105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathanson, R., & Saywitz, K. J. (2015). Preparing children for court: Effects of a model court education program on children’s anticipatory anxiety. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 33, 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Children’s Alliance. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/

  • National Crime Victim Law Institute (2017). Navigating the perils of pro se: How to protect your client from cross-examination by a pro se defendant. Retrieved from National Crime Victim Law Institute website: https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/24850-navigating-the-perils-of-pro-se-how-to-protect.

  • Oei, N. Y. L., Everaerd, W. T. A. M., Elzinga, B. M., Van Well, S., & Bermond, B. (2006). Psychosocial stress impairs working memory at high loads: An association with cortisol levels and memory retrieval. Stress, 9, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253890600965773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omoto, M. (2014). Judicial system and finance for civil litigation in Japan. Paper presented to the 24 th annual RIAD CONGRESS, Sevilla, Spain.

  • Padfield, N. (2012). The right to self-representation in English criminal law. Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, 83, 357–375. https://doi.org/10.3917/ridp.833.0357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480, U.S. 39, 51 (1987).

  • Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).

  • Quas, J. A., & Goodman, G. S. (2012). Consequences of criminal court involvement for child victims. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18, 392–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quas, J. A., & Lench, H. C. (2007). Arousal at encoding, arousal at retrieval, interviewer support, and children’s memory for a mild stressor. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quas, J. A., & McAuliff, B. D. (2009). Accommodating child witnesses in the criminal justice system: Implications for death penalty cases. In R. F. Schopp, R. L. Wiener, B. H. Bornstein, & S. L. Willborn (Eds.), Mental disorder and criminal law. Responsibility, punishment, and competence (pp. 79–102). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Quas, J. A., Bauer, A., & Boyce, W. T. (2004). Physiological reactivity, social support, and memory in early childhood. Child Development, 75, 797–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00707.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., Alexander, K. W., Edelstein, R., Redlich, A. D., . . . Jones, D. P. H. (2005). Childhood sexual assault victims: Long-term outcomes after testifying in criminal court. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 70 , Serial No. 280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2005.00342.x.

  • Ram, J. (1873). A treatise on facts as subjects of inquiry by jury (3rd ed.). New York: Baker, Boorhis, & Co. Retrieved from https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/20311883.

  • Ramaite v The State, ZASCA 144 (2014).

  • Righarts, S., O'Neill, S., & Zajac, R. (2013). Addressing the negative effect of cross-examination questioning on children’s accuracy: Can we intervene? Law and Human Behavior, 37, 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saywitz, K. J., & Nathanson, R. (1993). Children’s testimony and their perceptions of stress in and out of the courtroom. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17, 613–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(93)90083-H.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saywitz, K. J., Snyder, L., & Nathanson, R. (1999). Facilitating the communicative competence of the child witness. Applied Developmental Science, 3, 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0301_7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saywitz, K. J., Larson, R. P., Hobbs, S. D., & Wells, C. (2014). Listening to children in foster care: Eliciting reliable reports from children . Review of influential factors. Retrieved from The National Board of Health and Welfare website: http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/publikationer2015/2015-1-17.

  • Saywitz, K. J., Wells, C. R., Larson, R. P., & Hobbs, S. D. (2016). Effects of interviewer support on children’s memory and suggestibility: Systematic review and meta-analyses of experimental research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, Online first publication, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016683457.

  • Schneider, W. E. (2015). Engines of truth. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schudson, C. B. (1987). Making courts safe for children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 120–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626087002001011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevier, J. (2014). The truth-justice tradeoff: Perceptions of decisional accuracy and procedural justice in adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexual Offences Procedure and Evidence (Scotland) Act § 288C (2002).

  • Slobogin, C. (2009). Mental illness and self-representation: Faretta, Godinez, & Edwards. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7, 391–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, J. W. (1988). The art of cross-examination . NSW Bar Association Bar News.

  • State v. Carrico, 91 Wash. App. 1043 (1998) unpublished.

  • State v. Crandall, 120 N.J. 649, 577 A.2d 483 (1990).

  • State v. Sigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 556 A.2d 112 (1989).

  • Tye, M. C., Amato, S. L., Honts, C. R., Devitt, M. K., & Peters, D. (1999). The willingness of children to lie and the assessment of credibility in an ecologically relevant laboratory setting. Applied Developmental Science, 3, 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0302_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22, 103–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Const. amend. VI.

  • U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau (2018). Child maltreatment, 2016. Retrieved from the Children’s bureau website: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment.

  • Underwood, R. H. (1997). The limits of cross-examination. American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 21, 113–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, A. (1999). Boy, 8, a witness in a murder case, is found slain with his mother. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com.

  • Wellman, F. L. (2009). ABA classics: The art of cross-examination. Washington DC: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westcott, H. L., & Page, M. (2002). Cross-examination, sexual abuse and child witness identity. Child Abuse Review, 11, 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitcomb, D., Goodman, G. S., Runyan, D., & Hoak, S. (1994). The emotional effects of testifying on sexually abused children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigmore, J. H. (1904). A treatise on the system of evidence in trials at common law (Vol. 2.). Boston: Little, Brown.

  • Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (UK), §§ 34–35 (1999).

  • Zajac, R., Irvine, B., Ingram, J. M., & Jack, F. (2016). The diagnostic value of children’s responses to cross-examination questioning. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 34, 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, R., O’Neill, S., & Hayne, H. (2012). Disorder in the courtroom? Child witnesses under cross-examination. Developmental Review, 32, 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, R., Westera, N., & Kaladelfos, A. (2017). The “good old days” of courtroom questioning: Changes in the format of child cross-examination questions over 60 years. Child Maltreatment, 23, 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559517733815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Alice Lustre, Lisa Ahlers, and Deborah Goldfarb for their feedback and consultation. We also thank Jack Wilenchik for inspiration and encouragement. Writing of this article was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (No. 1424420) and the National Institute of Justice (No. 2013-IJ-CX-0104).

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the National Institute of Justice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Child Development, College of Education, California State University, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA, 95819, USA

    Sue D. Hobbs

  2. Center for Public Policy Research and Department of Psychology, University of California, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    Gail S. Goodman

Authors
  1. Sue D. Hobbs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gail S. Goodman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sue D. Hobbs or Gail S. Goodman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hobbs, S.D., Goodman, G.S. Self-Representation: Pro se Cross-Examination and Revisiting Trauma upon Child Witnesses. Int. Journal on Child Malt. 1, 77–95 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-018-0005-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-018-0005-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation