Summary
The Kentucky Supreme Court mandated a new trial. This decision stemmed from the trial court's erroneous exclusion of expert testimony. This testimony pertained to how suggestive or coercive interviewing techniques applied to children might impair memory and, consequently, diminish the credibility of a child's claims.
Summary
The Kentucky Supreme Court determined that a new trial was necessary. This decision stemmed from the trial court's error in not allowing expert testimony. This testimony would have explained how suggestive or coercive interview techniques used with children can negatively impact memory, thereby questioning the accuracy of a child's statements.
Summary
The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that a new trial was necessary. The original trial court made an error by not allowing an expert to testify. This expert would have explained how certain ways of interviewing children can change their memories. Such interviews, if they are suggestive or push a child to say certain things, can make a child's claims less dependable.
Summary
The Kentucky Supreme Court decided a new trial was needed. The first trial made a mistake by not letting an expert talk about how questioning children in certain ways can change what they remember. This means what the child said might not be dependable.