## Facts

- Margaret Kelly Michaels, a preschool teacher, was prosecuted for multiple sexual offenses based on alleged abuse of children approximately three to five years old at a day-care center.
- The prosecution relied heavily on the children’s statements and trial testimony following repeated interviews conducted by parents, therapists, and investigators.
- The defense asserted that the interview methods were coercive and suggestive, including repeated questioning, leading prompts, reinforcement for inculpatory responses, and interviewer assumptions that abuse occurred.
- Michaels was convicted on numerous counts and received a lengthy prison sentence.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether pretrial interviewing of very young child witnesses was so suggestive or coercive that it substantially undermined the reliability of their later statements and testimony, violating due process and the right to a fair trial.
2. Whether the trial court was required to conduct a pretrial evidentiary hearing to assess the reliability (taint) of the children’s evidence before admitting it.
3. What remedy and procedures are required when a defendant makes a sufficient showing that child-witness evidence may be tainted.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and vacated Michaels’s convictions.
- The Court held the interviewing techniques were sufficiently improper and suggestive to raise serious reliability concerns about the children’s accounts.
- The Court ruled the trial court should have conducted a pretrial taint (reliability) hearing once the defense made a threshold showing of potential taint.
- The case was remanded for a taint hearing and further proceedings; depending on the hearing’s findings, the State could retry the case with admitted evidence, face limits on proof, or be unable to proceed if taint was too severe.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal defendant has a due process right to a fair trial based on sufficiently reliable evidence, including when the State’s case depends on testimony from very young children.
- When a defendant makes a threshold showing that child-witness interviews were conducted using highly suggestive or coercive techniques that may have materially influenced the child’s account, the court must hold a pretrial evidentiary taint hearing to evaluate admissibility.
- At a taint hearing, the judge assesses interview circumstances (number, sequence, interviewers, and methods) and may consider expert evidence on child suggestibility and memory.
- After a colorable showing of taint, the State bears the burden to establish that the proffered testimony is reliable enough for admission.
- Improper interviewing does not create a per se rule excluding child testimony; admissibility turns on a case-specific assessment of whether taint undermines reliability.

## Conclusion

The New Jersey Supreme Court vacated Michaels’s convictions because the State’s child-witness evidence was developed through interview practices that raised substantial reliability concerns, and the trial court failed to conduct a required pretrial taint hearing to determine whether the children’s testimony could fairly be presented to a jury.


State v. Michaels, 136 N.J. 299, 642 A.2d 1372 (N.J. 1994)