Lake County begins taping statements in child abuse cases

Jeffrey Harrison of Grayslake occupies a somewhat unique place in Lake County criminal justice history.

Harrison, 32, is accused in the Feb. 17 predatory sexual assault of an 11-year-old girl, and his case was the first in the county in which the victim's statement was recorded on videotape.

In doing so, Lake County joins a growing number of jurisdictions using cameras to help child victims tell their powerful stories.

So far, it has been used in 19 criminal cases by investigators at the Lake County Children's Advocacy Center.

"In everything we do here, we put the needs of the child above everything," said Laura Notson, the center's executive director. "We believe this to be an extremely useful tool in the prosecution of the case, and at the same time greatly reduces the trauma to the child."

Notson said taping victims' statements is not required in Illinois, but it is mandatory in 11 other states.

Locally, prosecutors in Kane and DuPage counties videotape the statements, and Cook County officials are researching the matter.

Time may be short before the practice becomes mandatory here.

In a 2005 decision, the appellate court gave Illinois a nudge toward requiring videotaping in all child abuse cases.

"More than a year ago, we put the state on notice of the risk it takes by not recording interviews of alleged child victims," the decision reads. "We held that the lack of such a verbatim recording could give cause for skepticism that the interview was free of adult prompting or manipulation."

Lake County Assistant Atate's Attorney Christen Bishop said videotaping statements heads off a chief defense challenge that the child was manipulated by an investigator asking leading questions.

"We turn on the camera when everybody goes into the room and that argument goes out the window," said Bishop, who oversees operations at the advocacy center. "The questions and the responses are right there for everybody to see and hear."

Proponents say the tape also eliminates the need for the investigator to write a report in which he or she has to translate into adult language what the child says.

"Children are very descriptive speakers, they have their own way of expressing themselves," Notson said. "It makes for a very powerful statement if the child tells you what happened in his or her own words."

There are opponents of videotaping statements, who contend children will at times deny anything happened to them, and those denials are recorded as well as the disclosures.

Critics also say videotaping gives defense experts an opportunity to challenge every word the interviewer or the child uses. And, there is concern the taping equipment could make some children uncomfortable.

But Notson said experts are available to testify for prosecutors that initial denials are part of many statements of abused children, and do not necessarily undermine the credibility of a statement.

The investigators who do the interviews are highly trained in how to pose questions, she said, and they have had experience with children being made uneasy by the presence of a video recorder.

The most hoped-for result of the taping, Notson said, is it will present such a powerful case that a defendant will choose to plead guilty rather than go to trial.

In McHenry County, which has videotaped statements for more than seven years, Assistant State's Attorney Julia Almedia said the tapes make trials go more smoothly. Both sides have a clear picture of what to expect when the child takes the witness stand, she said.

Defense attorney Rhonda Bruno said she has yet to defend a case where the victim's statement is on videotape, but agrees with Almedia's assessment.

"The tape will show you what is there and it will also show you what is not there," Bruno said. "I believe it would be very helpful in sizing up not only the strengths of the state's case, but also its weaknesses."

In Essex County, N.J., where the practice began in 2000, prosecutor Mark Ali said there have been 950 to 1,000 statements videotaped.

That number is important, he said, because it means there were that many cases when a child had to be interviewed by an investigator only once.

"There can be situations where a child could be exposed to numerous interviews by a number of investigators from child welfare agencies and the like," Ali said. "With the tape, the child goes through it once, and anyone else with an interest in the case can simply view the tape."

Notson said the child and his or her parents are told the interview is going to be taped, and the parents sign a document informing them the tape will have a severely restricted viewing audience.

Only the prosecutor, defense attorney, the accused and a limited number of other people, such as investigators, are allowed to see the tape before the case goes to trial.

If the case reaches trial, it can be shown to the judge and the jury, which Bishop said demonstrates another positive aspect of the tape.

"Unfortunately, we cannot get these cases to trial as quickly as we would like to, but the tape captures the child at the age of disclosure," Bishop said. "We will avoid any developmental changes in the child becoming an issue in the case."