The admissibility of scientific evidence is usually governed by the Frye test (whether such evidence has achieved general acceptance in the scientific community). In the hypnosis context, the Frye test usually is construed to require actual scientific accuracy rather than mere acceptance as a memory aid. As to constitutionality, it appears clear that if subjects can be given false facts under hypnosis and then pass a polygraph test, it is virtually impossible to cross-examine them effectively. Thus, given the defendant's inability to effectively cross-examine such witnesses, hypnotically enhanced testimony should not clear sixth amendment scrutiny. Moreover, the use of hypnotically enhanced testimony in a criminal setting should be held violative of the defendant's right to a fair trial and thus incontravention of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Finally, the admission of hypnotically enhanced testimony will have a substantial prejudicial impact on the defendant. Any potential courtroom witness should be hypnotized only as a last resort. Once hypnotized, the witness' testimony should be excluded. A total of 190 case notes are cited.