NCJ Number
88248
Journal
Idaho Law Review Volume: 18 Issue: 1 Dated: (1982) Pages: 111-132
Date Published
1982
Length
22 pages
Annotation
Until the scientific community can agree regarding the reliability of information obtained from a hypnotized witness, testimony involving hypnosis should not be admissible.
Abstract
The rules promulgated by State courts regarding the admissibility of 'hypnotically enhanced' evidence range from unconditional admission to inadmission as a matter of law. A statute similar to that adopted by Oregon would give the judiciary direction in considering the admissibility of such testimony rather than forcing a court to begin without any standard. Any court favoring the admission of hypnotically enhanced testimony should at least adopt the standards set forth by the New Jersey court in State v. Hurd. Such safeguards would recognize the possibilities for abuse inherent in the use of hypnosis and would help prevent possible suggestiveness during the hypnotic session. The adoption of the Frye test would be a preferable approach, however. This test assigns the task of determining the reliability of an evolving scientific technique to members of the scientific community from which the new method emerges, rather than assigning the task to the trial judge. The cases of State v. Mack in Minnesota and State v. Mean in Arizona have used the Frye test. Hypnosis needs much more study before any definitive conclusions about its nature are possible. Its use in courtroom testimony should await a scientific consensus regarding its appropriateness in this area. Footnotes are provided.