NCJ Number
127881
Journal
Law and Psychology Review Volume: 13 Dated: (Spring 1989) Pages: 131-146
Date Published
1989
Length
16 pages
Annotation
After reviewing the historical and scientific developments of hypnosis, this article examines the legal processes and judicial considerations in allowing hypnotically enhanced testimony followed by an analysis of the future trends in courts' judgments on the credibility and admissibility of hypnotically enhanced testimony.
Abstract
Hypnosis has been used in the legal process to test the truthfulness of a witness' testimony and to enhance a witness' recall about criminal incidents. The first reported decision to raise the issue of the pretrial use of hypnosis was Harding v. State (Maryland, 1968), in which the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the use of hypnosis to refresh the witness' memory may affect the credibility, but not the admissibility of the victim's testimony. Following this decision, a majority of State and Federal courts held hypnotically enhanced testimony to be admissible. Since 1980, however, this view has been rejected by several courts under the application of the "Frye" test for scientific evidence. These decisions held hypnotically enhanced testimony inadmissible per se due to the inherent unreliability of hypnosis in yielding accurate recollections from the subject. The "Hurd" decision created a third line of cases that held post-hypnotic testimony should be admitted on a case-by-case basis using specified procedural safeguards. This is the apparent trend for the courts' handling of such testimony. 116 footnotes