Recently, the Washington Post published an amicus brief which they had received, concerning the Supreme Court case Ohio v. Clark. Two university professors, Richard D. Friedman and Stephen J. Ceci, wrote the brief which is titled "How Courts Should Hear from Children." They tell the story of a 3-year-old, referred to as L.P., who showed up to day care with abuse marks on him. When asked who was responsible, the child indicated it was his mother’s boyfriend, Darius Clark. Friedman and Ceci insist that Clark was unfairly convicted since L.P. had not testified at his trial, thus no legal representative of Clark’s was able to question the boy. They argue that it would be better for the courts to allow young children to be interviewed privately by a forensic examiner in order to authenticate evidence. 

     Because both authors possess distinguished qualifications, they obviously are trustworthy on this issue. Friedman is a professor from the Law School of the University of Michigan. Ceci is a professor at Cornell University in the Department of Human Development. Through a professional presentation, they present competent emotional and logical arguments. Take when they suggest reasons for allowing young children to be treated as physical evidence, “And finally, testimony at trial is simply hard on a child, even if… the child is allowed to testify outside the presence of the accused. The procedure we propose would be much gentler.” Naturally people will support a plan that makes any sort of legal procedures easier on a child of that age. Also, the common sense of this claim is proof of sensible and proficient thought. Of course, this is just one example of their rational expertise.  

     On the other hand, Friedman and Ceci offer no outside evidence for the argument. Personally I feel their words would hold more weight if they cited other court cases or used data to support their points. Furthermore the authors do not really explain their proposed policy changes. They declare, “Instead, he [Clark] should be able to choose a qualified forensic examiner to interview L.P., under a prescribed protocol, in an attempt to determine whether there are grounds for doubting L.P.’s statement that Clark abused him.” As a legally inexperienced civilian, I feel that a vague outline like this is an insufficient plan for change. Naturally some of the Washington Post readers have a great deal more knowledge than me, but I believe, unfortunately, the majority of Friedman’s and Ceci’s audience remain largely ignorant of legal process.     

    In the end, I am convinced. According to the logical reasoning presented in this amicus brief, the Supreme Court should change the way it treats very young witnesses. We can all agree that small children like that are not capable of equivalent testimony as adults. But what should the solution be? I agree with Friedman and Ceci that the kids should be looked upon as evidence and their testimony examined respectfully out of court.