This is an article that truly "covers the waterfront." The author, originally writing in the Baylor Law Review, addresses the implications of a New Jersey Supreme Court reversal of a child molestation conviction of a case originally prosecuted in 1984. The person accused had served five years in jail when an appeals court overturned the original conviction based on what it believed was improper interviewing technique of children. As the author writes:

Some of the interviews are textbook examples of how not to talk to children. Investigators used highly leading questions and effectively browbeat children into agreeing with investigators' preconceived ideas.

The author then describes a pre-trial procedure that the court established to test the quality of interview techniques used when speaking with children. If the court rules as a consequence of these "taint hearings" that the techniques were improper, the result could be to forbid the child from testifying in any subsequent prosecution. The reason for that result would be the court's belief that the interview process skewed the child's memory that the testimony would be inherently unreliable.

Myers then provides a fair minded description of the pros and cons of taint hearings as a procedure in the investigation and prosecution of child molestation cases.

Beyond the hearings themselves, the author addresses several other questions. For example, what role, if any, does the video taping of child interviews play in improving the quality of interviews? Myers provides anecdotal evidence that the use of video tapes forces investigators to be more careful in their technique, if only because that tape will become central evidence in the taint hearings themselves.

At this point the author attempts another critical task: to properly define the standards that ought be set for the interview of children. In so doing, he create excellent analysis of important issues associated with the interview process. His discussion is quite careful. For example, he begins by establishing issues that will help us understand the various types of conclusions that we might draw when evaluating interview technique:

What then are the norms of legally acceptable interviewing? To answer this question it is useful to create four categories:

(a) proper interview practices,
(b) improper practices,
(c) practices that are proper or improper depending on the circumstances, and
(d) circumstances under which a child's safety justifies suggestive questions.

He also does a masterful job in analyzing the various ways in which the form of a question might affect a witness. Perhaps the most important point he makes is that virtually any question is "suggestive." In this context we should consider the question, "Who was in the room?" It is an open-ended question that by all reasonable assessment does not "lead" a witness. On the other hand, it does suggest that "someone" might have been in the room.

He also provides a blueprint for the conduct of the interview itself. That blueprint is roughly equivalent to the process we use when we "slice the bologna."

Once rapport is established, initial questions should be as nonsuggestive as possible. Interviewers generally begin with open-ended questions that invite narrative responses ... When a child does not respond to open-ended questions--and many children do not--the interviewer moves cautiously to more focused questions ...

At the same time the article is not without blemish. For example, the author clearly confuses the concepts of open-ended and closed-ended questions. At one point he defines an open-ended question as, "... a question that bends over backward to be nonsuggestive." Generally most would define an open-ended question as one which cannot be answered with "yes," "no," or "maybe." He then gives three examples of open-ended questions.

• Did anything happen?
• Can you tell me more?
• Did anything else happen?

All can be answered with "yes," "no," or "maybe."

Regardless, this is an excellent article. If it covers the waterfront, it does so credibly for each of the issues it raises. The author has provided us with information that is truly instructive.