skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 66035 Find in a Library
Title: INHERENT PROBLEMS IN THE USE OF PRETRIAL HYPNOSIS ON A PROSPECTIVE WITNESS
Journal: CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW  Volume:68  Issue:2  Dated:(MARCH 1980)  Pages:313-349
Author(s): B L DIAMOND
Corporate Author: University of California
Berkeley School of Law
United States of America
Date Published: 1980
Page Count: 37
Sponsoring Agency: Fred B Rothman & Co
Littleton, CO 80123
Institute for Scientific Information
Philadelphia, PA 19104
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Sale Source: Fred B Rothman & Co
Marketing Manager
10368 W Centennial Rd
Littleton, CO 80123
United States of America

Institute for Scientific Information
University City Science Ctr
3501 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
United States of America
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: BY REVIEWING THE NATURE OF HYPNOSIS, LEGAL PRECEDENT, LITERATURE, AND EVIDENTIARY AND ADMISSIBILITY PROBLEMS WITH HYPNOTICALLY MANIPULATED RECALL, THIS ARTICLE ARGUES AGAINST THE USE OF TESTIMONY ENHANCED BY HYPNOSIS.
Abstract: THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT AGAINST HYPNOTISM AS A TRUTH REVEALING TECHNIQUE ADMISSIBLE IN LEGAL EVIDENCE CONTENDS THAT ONCE A POTENTIAL WITNESS HAS BEEN HYPNOTIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENHANCING MEMORY, HIS RECOLLECTIONS HAVE BEEN SO CONTAMINATED THAT HE IS RENDERED EFFECTIVELY INCOMPETENT TO TESTIFY. HYPNOTIZED PERSONS, BEING EXTREMELY SUGGESTIBLE, GRAFT ONTO THEIR MEMORIES FANTASIES OR SUGGESTIONS DELIBERATELY OR UNWITTINGLY COMMUNICATED BY THE HYPNOTIST, SO THAT THE SUBJECT NO LONGER DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN TRUE RECOLLECTION AND FANTASY OR SUGGESTED DETAIL. A REVIEW OF CASE PRECEDENT AND LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT SHOWS THAT WHILE SOME SCHOLARS HAVE RECOGNIZED THE RISKS OF ABUSING HYNOTICALLY INDUCED RECALL, MOST COURTS RELY ON PROCEDURAL SAFEQUARDS TO MINIMIZE THESE RISKS. HOWEVER, EVIDENTIARY PROBLEMS WITH HYPNOTICALLY MANIPULATED RECALL HAS BEEN ILLUSTRATED THROUGH CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE BASIC NATURE OF HYPNOSIS AND ITS EFFECTS; I.E., A HYPNOTIZED PERSON CANNOT AVOID IMPLANTING SUGGESTIONS IN THE MIND OF HIS SUBJECT, SIMULATIONS OF HYPNOSIS CANNOT BE DETECTED, AND FACT AND FANTASY OF RECALL CANNOT BE DISTINGUISHED AFTER HYPNOSIS. FURTHER, THREE CALIFORNIA HEARINGS ARE EXAMPLES OF CASES WHERE THE COURT REJECTED EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RECOMMENDED DISQUALIFYING PROPOSED WITNESSES BECAUSE OF PRETRIAL HYPNOSIS. OVERALL, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT TESTIMONY FROM PREVIOUSLY HYPNOTIZED WITNESSES BE EXCLUDED AS A MATTER OF LAW, AS SUCH WITNESSES HAVE BEEN RENDERED INCOMPETENT TO TESTIFY. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (MRK)
Index Term(s): California; Case studies; Judicial decisions; Questioning under hypnosis; Rules of evidence; Testimony
Note: THIS ARTICLE, IN PART, WAS PRESENTED AS THE DISTINGUISHED LECTURE FOR THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PSYCHIATRY AND LAW ON MAY 13, 1979 PRICE QUOTED IS FOR ENTIRE ISSUE
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=66035

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.