U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Hypnosis in Criminal Investigations - An Analysis of Recent Decisions

NCJ Number
84100
Journal
Law and Order Volume: 30 Issue: 7 Dated: (July 1982) Pages: 34-39,41
Author(s)
J G La Fond
Date Published
1982
Length
7 pages
Annotation
Recent court cases focusing on the issue of hypnosis have shown a misunderstanding of hypnosis, poor logic in examining the totality of testimony, and a failure to focus on police investigative procedures.
Abstract
The use of hypnosis in criminal cases has had its most recent and notable exposure in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nebraska. In these States, the courts have either adopted an absolute exclusion of hypnotically enhanced memory or have issued requirements governing the future use of hypnosis in criminal cases. In State vs. Hurd, a 1981 New Jersey case, the court outlined restrictive requirements for the future use of hypnosis. The conviction at trial was overturned on appeal, primarily on the strength of testimony presented by expert defense witnesses challenging the reliability of hypnosis. While there was sufficient evidence that the investigating officers and the psychiatrist hypnotist did elicit and reinforce the identification obtained under hypnosis, this did not warrant the general critical comments of hypnosis made by the court. The court's focus should have been on the misuse of hypnosis in the particular circumstances of the case. In State vs. Palmer, the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that the general unreliability of hypnosis prevents the admissibility of testimony by a witness who has been previously questioned under hypnosis. In other cases as well, the courts have reached unwarranted general conclusions about the use of hypnosis in obtaining testimony. Testimony obtained under hypnosis should be treated as any other eyewitness testimony; it should be admissible to have its credibility determined by the court, based upon the credentials of the examiner, the method used to elicit the information, and its relationship to other evidence presented.