A great deal of controversy surrounds the forensic use of hypnosis to enhance the memories of victims, witnesses, and defendants, use of which has sharply increased in the past decade. The argument is that hypnosis should not be allowed as evidence because of its inherent unreliability and the unduly powerful impact it may have on a jury. In this research, a jury simulation technique was used to study the impact that a hypnotically refreshed witness has upon jurors' decision making. Results indicate that jurors view hypnotic testimony with a certain amount of skepticism. In some respects, its impact is comparable to that of testimony based on delayed recall, and rarely does it have the impact of testimony from an immediate report. In addition, jurors' judgments about hypnotically refreshed testimony affected the way they evaluated other evidence at trial. Jurors who learned that a prosecution witness had been hypnotized were less believing of other prosecution witnesses than were jurors not exposed to hypnotic testimony. Further research specifying conditions under which hypnosis is reliable and how it effects the witness's demeanor is clearly warranted. 34 references. (Author abstract modified)