Research has documented that individuals differ in their ability to respond to hypnotic suggestions and that this difference is a relatively stable trait. Further, research indicates that most people are able to experience an hypnotic state in some degree. Studies also show that hypnosis can be faked, and people are capable of lying in hypnosis, although these are rarely major problems. Although the testimony of witnesses who have been hypnotized has not been found to be more accurate than that of unhypnotized witnesses, it will probably be more convincing to jurors. Moreover, research shows that hypnosis can create pseudomemories which the witness cannot distinguish from the original recollections. Both prosecution and defense have used hypnosis to try to enhance witnesses' memories, but many appellate courts have refused to admit such testimony as evidence or have established guidelines for its admission. This brief argues that hypnosis conducted under guidelines relating to the hypnotist's qualifications, videotape recording, and other factors offers potential benefits for investigative purposes, but hypnotically refreshed testimony should not be admissible in court. Explanations of the guidelines for using hypnosis in investigations and a bibliography listing l6 references are supplied.