Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forensic Interviewers Hearsay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers adding forensic interviewers to list who can report child out‑of‑court statements; proponents cite accreditation, defenders warn of gaps
Summary
House Bill 442 would add accredited forensic interviewers to the narrow hearsay exception that permits out‑of‑court statements by child victims; prosecutors and county executives said the change addresses staffing and rural access, while the Office of the Public Defender urged caution over licensing and oversight.
House Bill 442 would add ‘‘forensic interviewers’’ to the list of professionals whose out‑of‑court statements by child victims may be admissible under Maryland Criminal Procedure §11‑304. Supporters said the change reflects modern practice at child advocacy centers (CACs) and would expand access, especially in rural counties.
Delegate Simpson, sponsor, said the bill would allow qualified forensic interviewers — professionals trained to conduct developmentally appropriate, non‑leading interviews — to be recognized for purposes of the tender‑years hearsay exception. Jessica Fitzwater, Frederick County executive, said the county’s CAC sometimes lacks a full‑time staffer with a social‑work license and that adding forensic interviewers would ensure children can be interviewed on days the licensed staffer is unavailable.
Prosecutors including Scott Shellenberger (Baltimore County) and Christian Masch (Garrett County) described accreditation standards, training and peer review for forensic interviewers and said the child still must testify in court; the recorded interview supplements consistency of the child’s account.
Joyce King of the Maryland State’s Attorneys Association and Debbie Feinstein (Montgomery County) said accreditation overseen by the National Children’s Alliance and local CAC protocols provide rigorous training and peer review; Feinstein pointed to bilingual forensic interviewers as an advantage over ad‑hoc interpreters.
Supporters argued the change would reduce retraumatization and address resource shortages in rural jurisdictions. Catherine Gravely of the Center for Hope and Erica Lamon of Maryland Legal Aid also supported the amendment and said courts retain a pretrial hearing and independent assessment of trustworthiness.
Tamara Stofa, district public defender, opposed HB 442. Stofa said other professionals listed in the statute are licensed and subject to state oversight, while ‘‘forensic interviewer’’ lacks a statutory definition and state disciplinary mechanism; she urged caution about creating a broader hearsay exception without statutory training and enforcement standards.
Committee members questioned accreditation, oversight and whether the National Children’s Alliance or state bodies would provide enforcement. Supporters said CAC accreditation and peer review, plus the existing pretrial hearing and requirement that the child testify, preserve judicial safeguards. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing.
— Ending: The panel concluded HB 442 testimony after proponents described training and accreditation standards and defenders raised concerns about oversight and statutory definition; sponsor said she would file written responses and is open to technical fixes.
