Forensic Interviewing of Children — Why Technique Determines Truth
A child's account is only as reliable as the process that produced it. Trained forensic interviewer and defense attorney Matt Long explains proper protocols, what goes wrong, and how contaminated interviews are challenged in Arizona courts.
"To be forensic means to be particularly sound, designed for court. Most interviews of children in criminal investigations are not forensic. They are conversations that contaminate evidence rather than preserve it."
The Difference Between an Interview and a Forensic Interview
The word "forensic" comes from the Latin for "of the forum," meaning designed for court. A forensic interview is not simply a conversation with a child about what happened to them. It is a structured, recorded process conducted by a trained professional using evidence-based techniques whose specific purpose is to elicit reliable information without introducing contamination.
Matt Long trained as a forensic interviewer early in his career because he understood something that many investigators and attorneys do not: the way a child is interviewed directly determines the reliability of what the child says. A child interviewed improperly does not simply produce a less accurate account. They produce an account that may be permanently and irreversibly altered, fused with information introduced during the interview, making the original memory impossible to recover.
Improper forensic interviewing harms everyone. It harms genuine victims whose accounts are so contaminated that prosecutors cannot build a case that holds up. It harms the accused when contaminated accounts produce false identifications or inflated descriptions of events. And it harms the justice system by making the central evidence in a case unreliable before it ever reaches a courtroom. A proper forensic interview serves every party, because it preserves the truth.
The NICHD Protocol: What Best Practice Looks Like
The most scientifically validated method for forensic interviewing of children is the NICHD Protocol, developed by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. It is not the only accepted protocol, but it is the one with the strongest and most consistent research support, and it is the benchmark against which other approaches are measured.
The NICHD Protocol follows a structured sequence. The interviewer first establishes rapport and lays out ground rules with the child. The child then practices narrative recall using a neutral, non-threatening topic to build the habit of providing unprompted detail. Only after that foundation is established does the interviewer transition to the target event, using open-ended prompts only and avoiding leading or suggestive questions throughout. Research consistently shows that NICHD Protocol interviews produce more accurate and more complete information from child witnesses than unstructured interviews.
Defense attorneys evaluate whether the NICHD Protocol or a comparable validated method was used in every child abuse case they handle. When it was not, the departure from best practice is a fact the jury needs to understand.
What a Properly Conducted Forensic Interview Looks Like
Establish Ground Rules
The interviewer begins by establishing basic ground rules with the child: tell me if you do not understand something, tell me if you do not know the answer, correct me if I get something wrong. This empowers the child to control the accuracy of the conversation rather than simply agreeing with the authority figure asking questions.
Establish the Child's Vocabulary
Before asking about any sensitive subject matter, the interviewer must establish what language the child uses for body parts, sexual acts, and other relevant concepts. A child who calls a penis a "peanut" will produce an incomprehensible account if asked about "genitalia." The interviewer works in the child's language, not their own.
Open-Ended Prompts Only
Proper forensic questioning begins with the most open-ended prompts possible: "Tell me everything that happened." The interviewer does not ask yes/no questions, does not suggest possible answers, and does not name potential perpetrators until the child has provided their own account in their own words.
Single Interview Protocol
Children should be forensically interviewed as few times as possible. Each interview re-encodes the memory, incorporating elements from the conversation itself. Multiple interviews, particularly informal ones that occurred before the formal recorded session, are among the most common sources of contamination in child abuse cases.
Full Video Recording
Every forensic interview must be recorded in its entirety, audio and video, from the moment the child enters the room until they leave. Partial recordings, recordings that start after preliminary conversations, or audio-only recordings are significant red flags that defense attorneys examine immediately.
No Pre-Interview Disclosure to the Interviewer
The forensic interviewer should have minimal prior knowledge about what the child is alleged to have experienced. An interviewer who has been briefed in detail by investigators or parents enters the conversation with expectations that shape every question they ask, and those expectations contaminate the child's account before a word is spoken.
Therapy Is Not a Forensic Interview
In many child abuse cases, a child has been in therapy before the formal forensic interview is conducted. This creates a significant evidentiary problem that defense attorneys pursue directly.
A forensic interview is a structured, one-time or limited-session conversation designed to produce reliable evidence for a legal proceeding. It is conducted by a trained forensic interviewer, recorded in its entirety, and follows validated protocols designed to avoid contaminating the child's account. Therapy is something else entirely. It is an ongoing relationship focused on the child's healing, not evidence production. Therapists are not trained forensic interviewers and are not subject to the same evidentiary constraints.
When a child has been in therapy before the forensic interview, the defense examines what the therapist discussed with the child and whether those discussions introduced information, framing, or expectations that the child then carried into the recorded session. Therapy notes, session records, and therapist communications are discoverable. A defense attorney requests all of them.
Once outside information becomes part of a child's account, understanding why contaminated memory cannot be recovered becomes essential to evaluating reliability.
You have to be careful not to introduce information, not to coach, not to improperly infect their testimony. That is what forensic means: particularly sound. Most child interviews you see in criminal cases are not forensic by any meaningful standard.Matt Long, Partner and Trained Forensic Interviewer, Long & Simmons Law
The Most Common Forensic Interview Failures
Two Different Problems, Both Producing Unreliable Evidence
Defense attorneys and prosecutors sometimes use the words "coaching" and "contamination" interchangeably. They are not the same thing, and the distinction matters for how a challenge is built.
Coaching involves an adult deliberately instructing a child what to say, telling them what happened, who did it, or what words to use. It requires intent, and it typically leaves traces in prior conversations between the adult and the child. When coaching has occurred, the evidence of it usually exists somewhere in the record of pre-interview communications.
Contamination is subtler. It happens in the mechanics of the interview itself, through leading questions, behavioral reinforcement, or suggestions, without any deliberate intent to produce a false account. An interviewer can contaminate a child's account while sincerely believing they are conducting a proper investigation. The result is still unreliable evidence, and the child may sincerely believe every word of the contaminated account they report.
Both require challenge. Coaching is identified through careful review of all prior communications. Contamination is identified by a trained forensic interviewer who knows exactly what proper protocol looks like and can pinpoint precisely where this interview departed from it.
This distinction also helps explain the four types of false allegation in child abuse cases.
When Contaminated Interviews Can Be Challenged in Court
A child's account that has been contaminated by improper interviewing is not automatically excluded from an Arizona criminal case, but it can be challenged. The mechanism is a pretrial motion, and the timing matters. Challenges to the admissibility of child testimony based on improper interviewing must generally be raised before trial. Waiting until cross-examination is not enough.
Under the Arizona Rules of Evidence, if a child's account has been so shaped by leading questions, multiple informal interviews, adult suggestions, or behavioral reinforcement that it no longer reflects the child's independent recollection, a defense attorney can file a motion to suppress or substantially limit the testimony. Arizona courts have excluded or significantly restricted child testimony where investigators failed to follow proper forensic interview protocols, particularly where the contamination occurred before the formal recorded interview began.
In Arizona, a challenge to child testimony based on improper interviewing that is not raised through a timely pretrial motion can be waived. If you believe a child in your case was improperly interviewed, contact a defense attorney before preliminary hearings, not after. The window closes faster than most people expect.
How a Defense Attorney Reviews a Child's Forensic Interview
When a child abuse case involves a forensic interview, which is virtually all of them, the defense attorney's review of that interview is among the most important work they do. Matt Long trained as a forensic interviewer specifically so he could perform this analysis with the same rigor the protocol demands of interviewers.
A defense attorney should demand all recordings and notes from every interaction with the child, not just the formal forensic interview. This includes initial disclosures to parents, conversations with school counselors, informal discussions with police officers before the formal interview, and any notes taken by any adult who spoke with the child about the alleged events. The formal interview is rarely where the contamination began.
The review follows a specific sequence. First, the attorney obtains and reviews the complete recording, not just a summary. Second, every pre-interview communication is requested and examined, including therapy records if the child was in treatment. Third, the interviewer's training and certification history is verified. Fourth, the recording is analyzed question by question against established protocol, identifying every leading prompt, every repeated question, every instance of behavioral reinforcement.
The result of that analysis either confirms the interview was conducted properly or produces a documented record of specific protocol failures. That record is the foundation of a suppression motion, an expert challenge, or cross-examination at trial. It cannot be built from the summary report. It requires the full record.
Defense attorneys who are not themselves trained forensic interviewers typically retain an independent forensic interview expert to perform this analysis. Matt Long performs it directly, bringing the same training and standards to the review that a proper interviewer is held to in the room.
The interview review is one part of how defense attorneys expose investigative failures at trial.
Child Forensic Interviews in Phoenix and Maricopa County
In Maricopa County, child forensic interviews in abuse investigations are conducted through designated child advocacy centers and by DCS investigators, among others. The quality and protocol compliance of those interviews varies by facility, by interviewer, and by the circumstances under which the investigation was initiated. Not every interviewer in every agency has received the same level of training, and training received years ago without refresher work does not reflect current best practice.
DCS investigations in Arizona frequently begin with informal disclosures to school personnel, parents, or first responders before any forensic interview is scheduled. By the time a trained interviewer conducts the formal recorded session, multiple adults may have already questioned the child. Defense attorneys in Maricopa County request documentation of every one of those interactions. The formal interview is the end of a chain, not the beginning, and the earlier links are often where reliability problems originate.
If you are facing charges or a DCS investigation in Phoenix, Scottsdale, Mesa, Chandler, or anywhere in Maricopa County that involves a child's forensic interview, the methodology behind that interview can be examined and challenged. Long & Simmons Law handles criminal defense throughout Maricopa County and across Arizona.
Matt Long, Long & Simmons Law
Matt Long
A criminal defense attorney and nationally recognized expert in child and intimacy crimes, Matt Long is a trained forensic interviewer who provides training to law enforcement agencies and professionals across the country on best practices in child investigations and trial presentations. A former prosecutor in sex crimes, child crimes, and computer crimes, he brings over twenty years of experience to Arizona's most sensitive criminal cases, first for the state, now seeking justice, protecting the rights of his clients, and holding law enforcement accountable.
Child Interview Evidence Being Used Against You?
The way a child was interviewed is as important as what they said. Call Long & Simmons Law to speak with a trained forensic interviewer who will examine every conversation, not just the recorded one.
Questions about child interviews & criminal defense
What is a forensic interview of a child?
A forensic interview is a structured, recorded conversation conducted by a trained professional using evidence-based techniques designed to obtain reliable information from a child without coaching, leading, or contaminating their account. It uses open-ended prompts, age-appropriate language, and established protocols — most commonly the NICHD Protocol or the CornerHouse CARE approach — to allow the child to report in their own words. Forensic interviews are the evidentiary cornerstone of most child abuse prosecutions in Arizona.
What is the NICHD Protocol for forensic interviewing of children?
The NICHD Protocol — developed by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development — is the most scientifically validated method for forensic interviewing of children. It follows a structured sequence: establishing rapport and ground rules, practicing narrative recall with a neutral topic, transitioning to the target event using open-ended prompts only, and avoiding leading or suggestive questions throughout. Research consistently shows that NICHD Protocol interviews produce more accurate and more complete information from child witnesses than unstructured interviews. Defense attorneys evaluate whether the NICHD Protocol or a comparable validated method was used in every child abuse case they handle.
What is the difference between a forensic interview and a therapy session for a child?
A forensic interview is a structured, one-time or limited-session conversation designed to produce reliable evidence for a legal proceeding. It is conducted by a trained forensic interviewer, recorded in its entirety, and follows validated protocols that avoid contaminating the child's account. Therapy is an ongoing relationship focused on the child's healing, not evidence production. Therapists are not trained forensic interviewers and are not subject to the same evidentiary constraints. When a child has been in therapy before a forensic interview, defense attorneys examine what the therapist discussed with the child and whether those discussions may have contaminated the child's account of the alleged events.
Can a child's testimony be suppressed or limited because of improper interviewing?
Yes. Under Arizona Rules of Evidence, if a child's account has been so contaminated by leading questions, multiple informal interviews, adult suggestions, or coaching that it no longer reflects the child's independent recollection, a defense attorney can file a motion to suppress or limit the testimony. Arizona courts have excluded or significantly restricted child testimony in cases where investigators failed to follow proper forensic interview protocols, particularly where the contamination occurred before the formal recorded interview.
What makes a child's forensic interview unreliable?
A forensic interview becomes unreliable when: the interviewer asks leading or suggestive questions; the child was informally questioned multiple times before the recorded interview; an adult explicitly or implicitly suggested what the child should say; the interview fails to use age-appropriate vocabulary; the interviewer does not establish the child's own words for relevant concepts before using standard terminology; or the child was behaviorally reinforced through nods, smiles, or verbal affirmations when providing particular answers. Any one of these failures can permanently contaminate what the child reports and sincerely believes they remember.
How many times can a child be interviewed in an Arizona criminal case?
There is no absolute legal limit on the number of times a child can be interviewed in an Arizona criminal case, but best practices call for a single forensic interview whenever possible. Each additional interview re-encodes the child's memory, incorporating elements from the conversation itself. In practice, children in Arizona abuse cases are often informally questioned multiple times by parents, teachers, school counselors, and police before the formal forensic interview is conducted. Defense attorneys request documentation of every interaction, not just the recorded session.
Can defense attorneys be present during a child's forensic interview in Arizona?
No. Defense attorneys are not permitted to be present during a child's forensic interview in Arizona. However, the interview must be recorded in its entirety, and defense attorneys are entitled to the recording through the discovery process. This recording, along with notes from any preliminary conversations, is one of the most important pieces of evidence a defense attorney will examine in a child abuse case. Gaps in the recording, interviews that begin after the camera is turned on, or informal conversations that were not recorded are all significant red flags that a defense attorney will pursue.
What questions are interviewers not allowed to ask a child witness in Arizona?
Forensic interview protocols prohibit several categories of questions. Interviewers should not ask leading questions that suggest the expected answer. They should not name potential suspects before the child has independently identified anyone. They should not ask yes/no questions as the primary method of eliciting information. They should not repeat questions the child has already answered, which implies the first answer was wrong. And they should not use anatomically detailed dolls as a primary disclosure tool, which research has shown produces unreliable results in young children.
What should I do if I believe a child was improperly interviewed in a case involving me?
Contact a criminal defense attorney immediately, before the case reaches trial, and ideally before preliminary hearings. In Arizona, challenges to the admissibility of child testimony based on improper interviewing must generally be raised through pretrial motions. Request access to all recordings of the child's interviews, every informal conversation, not just the formal forensic interview. The conversations that happened before the camera was on are often where the most significant contamination occurred. Call Long & Simmons Law at 602-795-8808 for a confidential consultation.
What is the difference between coaching a child and a contaminated forensic interview?
Coaching involves an adult deliberately instructing a child what to say, telling them what happened, who did it, or what words to use. A contaminated forensic interview involves an interviewer inadvertently shaping the child's account through leading questions, behavioral reinforcement, or suggestions, without any deliberate intent to produce a false account. Both produce unreliable evidence. Coaching is more easily identified because it requires intent and typically leaves traces in prior conversations. Contamination is subtler; it happens in the mechanics of the interview itself and is identified by trained forensic interviewers and defense attorneys who know exactly what proper protocol looks like and where this one departed from it.
General educational purposes only. Not legal advice. Contact a licensed Arizona attorney immediately if you are under investigation or have been charged.