In the first experiment, mock jurors watched a videotaped simulation of a child sexual abuse trial that included a 10-year- old child witness testifying in one of three different modalities: (1) the child testified in court while directly confronting the defendant (open court condition); (2) the child testified in court with a protective shield placed between the child and the defendant (shield condition); or (3) the child testified outside the courtroom and the child's testimony was presented to the jury and the defendant on a video monitor (video condition). Mock jurors judged the defendant's guilt after watching the entire trial. Results showed that the modality of child testimony had no impact on conviction rates. In the second experiment, subjects watched the same trial used in the first experiment, but the trial was stopped immediately after the child testified. The child was the first witness to take the stand. Subjects were then asked to judge the defendant's guilt. In this experiment, the modality of child testimony had a significant impact on conviction rates. Subjects in the open court condition were more likely to convict the defendant than subjects in shield and videotape conditions. The relevance of the findings to U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the use of protective devices with child witnesses are discussed. 12 references and 4 tables