The paper discusses differing approaches taken by courts towards the admission of hypnotically enhanced testimony, as exemplified in Harding v. State (1968), State v. Hurd (1981), and People v. Hughes (1983). Despite the attempts of courts following the Hurd and Hughes rulings to develop schemes to admit at least some recollections of a previously hypnotized witness, many jurisdictions maintain that any hypnotically enhanced testimony is inadmissible. The paper reviews California v. Trombetta, which focused on whether the due process clause of the 14th amendment required preservation of breath samples as a condition to admissibility of breathalyzer test results. Also examined is Romano v. Kimmelman, in which a group of motorists directly attacked the accuracy of two breath-testing devices. The discussion notes that courts recently have not sustained challenges to the general acceptability of the breathalyzer as an accurate measure of blood-alcohol concentration. The paper's final section examines court decisions applying the Frye test to expert testimony relating to the battered child, rape trauma, and intrafamilial sexual abuse syndromes. 190 references.