There's nothing particularly unusual about the case that private defense attorney Andrew Schwarz took on in King County Juvenile Court last week. A minor in his early teens was on trial for allegedly sexually abusing two adolescents. The state claimed that the older boy showed his penis to the younger boys, and, in turn, played with their penises--and the prosecution had some potentially devastating evidence: written testimony from the younger boys.

Schwarz might have been defeated right there, but he had his own ace in the hole: forensic psychologist John Yuille, an expert from British Columbia. Yuille, who's written extensively on the subject of investigating child abuse, took the stand and tore apart the state's interviews with the younger boys.

"I can't determine from reading these interviews if there was sexual abuse here or not," testified Yuille. The questions that King County's child interview specialist Nicole Farrell posed to the children were too vague and leading in nature, Yuille asserted. "We need a verbatim record to know the questions [Farrell] asked and how [the children] responded," he said, but no such verbatim record exists.

At the behest of local defense attorneys, Yuille has been flown in to King County several times in the past few years to criticize Farrell's interviewing methods. Defense attorneys praise the psycologist for being able to cast doubt on testimony that prosecutors want the court to take as absolute truth.

This otherwise ordinary sexual abuse case--which was ongoing at press time-- illustrates a persistent problem in the state of Washington. Prosecutors in this state do not videotape their interviews with abused minors. Instead, they make "near verbatim" accounts (i.e., they take notes) of children's testimony. Because there are rules regulating when a minor will testify in court, these "near verbatim" interviews are often introduced as evidence.

"In the vast majority of cases, there's nothing else [besides the near verbatim record]," Yuille says. "There's no medical evidence. There's no other witnesses."

Consider the sexual abuse investigations that rocked the town of Wenatchee in Central Washington in 1994 and 1995. The Wenatchee Police Department went on a witch hunt for child molesters, eventually arresting and charging 43 people; 21 people were ultimately convicted of felonies. But of those 21, nine have since had their convictions thrown out on appeal. Part of the reason why so many were cleared of all charges was that the Wenatchee Police Department's lead investigator failed to adequately document how he interviewed the allegedly abused children. (One of the state's star child witnesses also happened to live with this lead investigator.) Consequently, the department's motives and methods were called into question. Did police intimidate a mentally disabled 14-year-old boy into fabricating his accusations? Did they influence the children by using leading or badgering questions? Videotaped interviews would have answered many of these questions.

Two years ago, in the aftermath of the Wenatchee fiasco, Olympia legislators asked the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to study videotaping as a tool for interviewing minors in sexual abuse cases. Last January, the institute came back with its conclusion: "Electronic recording is feasible, well accepted by interviewers, and has only minor impact on a child's reactions to the interview or to the comfort of interviewers," the study reads. The study seems to have fallen on deaf ears, however. State legislators can't even recall the issue of videotaping interviews being raised this past session. "That's come up from time to time and I don't think it did this year," says Rep. Ida Ballasiotes (R-Mercer Island), the state house co-chair of the Criminal Justice and Corrections Committee.

Videotaping children's interviews in sexual abuse cases has opponents. "It would inhibit children," says Scott O'Toole, the senior deputy prosecuting attorney of King County's Special Assault Unit. "We know that it inhibits adults." Moreover, O'Toole argues, "the child doesn't first disclose [sexual abuse allegations] to our interviewer; they disclose to a parent or to a teacher or to a friend. But, all of a sudden, that one interview that is recorded takes on a huge, huge significance. I don't know if that's fair."

But proponents of video technology insist that it makes the criminal justice system work better.

"In this state it's become a battle between defense lawyers and prosecutors," says defense attorney David S. Marshall. "But [when the technology is introduced], you don't find defense lawyers who say, 'Oh this is wonderful. We're winning all our cases now.' [With videotaped interviews] prosecutors screen their cases better. With a good videotape, that defendant may be a dead duck."

phil@thestranger.com