Law Commons^™

In Commonwealth v. Corbett, the defendant was charged with sexually assaulting a five-year-old child. As in most cases of sexual abuse, the child was the only witness to the abuse, and the prosecution viewed her testimony as essential. However, before the prosecutor could present the child's testimony to the jury, it was necessary to qualify her for the oath. Most courts require that child witnesses have some understanding of the difference between the truth and lies and the importance of telling the truth, and Massachusetts is no exception. A child who fails the qualifying questions is considered testimonially incompetent, and …

Two studies examined I92 maltreated young children's competence to take the oath.  Study I found that despite serious delays in receptive vocabulary, a majority of 5-year-olds correctly identified truthful statements and lies as such and recognized that lying is bad and would make authority figures mad. However, most participants up to 7 years of age could not define "truth" and "lie" or explain the difference between the terms. Four-year-olds were above chance in recognizing the immorality of lying but exhibited a tendency to identify all statements as the "truth. " Study 2 found that 4- and 5-year-olds performed above chance …

With all of the attention paid to children's performances as witnesses once on the stand, their ability to qualify to take the stand has been relatively neglected. Most courts require that in order to testify, a witness must first take the oath. In its most simple form, an oath is a promise to tell the truth. Taking the oath presupposes that one understands what it means to tell the truth, and that one appreciates one’s obligation to tell the truth when promising to do so. If a young child does not understand the difference between the truth and lies, or …