Courtrooms throughout the English-speaking world have traditionally taken a rather dim view of child witnesses, doubting their capacity, at least until age 14, to comprehend either the difference between truth and falsehood or the need for truthfulness in court. Children typically have been precluded from taking the oath (a precondition for testifying) until after they passed a "competency test" which probed their religious beliefs, their ability to supply a satisfactory lexical definition of lying, their fears of punishment for perjury, etc. However, there is little empirical evidence about how competency testing, or the oath, may shape jurors' perceptions of child (or adult) witnesses and their testimony. The study explores these issues as well as the question of whether jurors are biased in favor of, or against, the testimony of child witnesses. Table, references