The Supreme Court, Hearsay, and Crawford: Implications for Child Interviewers

APSAC (American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children), Vol. 20, p. 2, 2008

USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 09-18

Posted: 14 May 2009 Last revised: 22 Jun 2009

See all articles by Thomas D. Lyon

Thomas D. Lyon

University of Southern California Gould School of Law

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explain the implications of Crawford for child interviewing. The bottom line is that interviewers should remain committed to best practice; that is, they should continue to pursue approaches that increase the accuracy and completeness of children's reports. It would be a mistake, for example, to stop videotaping interviews in the hopes that this would render interviews non-testimonial. As for prosecutors, Crawford suggests that greater efforts should be made to enable children to testify at trial. In this article, I will briefly review the research on best practices in interviewing, discuss Crawford and the limits it places on testimonial hearsay, and explain how interviewers and prosecutors should best respond.

Suggested Citation

Lyon, Thomas D., The Supreme Court, Hearsay, and Crawford: Implications for Child Interviewers. APSAC (American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children), Vol. 20, p. 2, 2008; USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 09-18. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1404181

Thomas D. Lyon (Contact Author)

University of Southern California Gould School of Law ( email )

699 Exposition Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90089
United States
213-740-0142 (Phone)
213-740-5502 (Fax)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
398
PlumX Metrics