THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE USE OF HYPNOSIS INSIST THAT IT IS A SAFE, EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE TOOL TO HELP WITNESSES RECALL DETAILS OF A CRIME. OPPONENTS VOICE DOUBTS WHEN IT IS USED BY ANY BUT TRAINED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS. MEDICAL DANGERS, SUCH AS HYSTERIA, ARE REAL, BUT JUDICIAL DANGERS ARE GREATER, AND WITNESSES UNDER HYPNOSIS MAY UNINTENTIONALLY CREATE MEMORIES TO SATISFY INVESTIGATORS. TESTIMONY MUST BE SUBSTANTIATED BY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE. CITIZEN AND WITNESS MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE LIMITS OF HYPNOSIS CONTRIBUTE TO THE JUDICIAL DANGERS. HYPNOTICALLY INDUCED TESTIMONY IS ADMISSIBLE IN COURT ONLY IF DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION AGREE TO IT. THE JUDGE THEN MAY DEMAND TESTIMONY BY TWO HYPNOSIS EXPERTS WITH OPPOSING VIEWS, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE PROBLEMS: VERY FEW PSYCHIATRISTS HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO TESTIFY. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER HYPNOSIS CONSTITUTES TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN RAISED, BUT THE SUPREME COURT DENIED CERTIORARI. ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE THE USE OF HYPNOSIS THROUGH LEGISLATION HAVE FAILED. WHILE THE COURTS THEMSELVES MAY SEE HYPNOSIS AS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND REFUSE TO ADMIT IT IN EVIDENCE, SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS FIGHT TO RETAIN IT AS A TOOL. (RFC)