Abstract
The present study was designed to compare two forms of hearsay: videotaped hearsay and hearsay supplied by an adult witness. In elaborately staged, mock child sexual abuse trials, jurors were presented with (a) videotaped forensic interviews of children who, in actual legal cases, disclosed abuse or (b) a police officer who repeated the children's videotaped statements. In addition, a subset of jurors who viewed the videotape during trial were allowed access to the videotape during deliberations. Findings indicated that manner of presentation of children's testimony had an indirect effect on verdicts. Jurors in the videotape conditions were more likely to believe that the child fully disclosed during the forensic interview, which in turn influenced ratings of child believability. The latter ratings were the strongest predictor of defendant-guilt judgments.