Because of various legal and psychological assumptions about children, traditional competency requirements have worked to the special disadvantage of children. Traditionally, a voir dire or hearing to assess the child's competency occurs outside the jury's presence. The competency determination is based on an appreciation of the obligation to tell the truth, an understanding of the difference between truth and falsehood, the mental capacity to perceive impressions and recollect observations, and the ability to narrate or communicate the memory of these observations in words. Commentators have been uniformly critical of traditional competency procedures and agree that juries should be allowed to hear a child's testimony in most cases and assess its weight and credibility. Many States have eliminated procedures requiring the special qualification of child witnesses. Nonetheless, some courts continue to hold routine, preliminary competency examinations for children, even when competency reforms have been instituted. In the few cases in which a preliminary examination is merited, the child's competency should be established upon a showing of minimal credibility so that liberalized rules designed to protect children are not negated. In some jurisdictions, judges have instructed juries to subject a child witness' testimony to special scrutiny. To the extent that such instructions direct the jury's attention to the child's testimonial capacity or credibility, they may have a negative influence and should be avoided if possible. 27 footnotes