Rethinking per se exclusions of hypnotically elicited recall as legal testimony

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 66-81

  Perry, Campbell ^a   Orne, Martin T ^b,d   London, Ray William ^c   Orne, Emily Carota ^b  

^a Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c London Associates International   (United States)

^d Inst for Experimental Psychiatry   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; HYPNOSIS; LEGAL ASPECT; RECALL; REVIEW; THINKING; WITNESS;

EID: 0030030311     PISSN: 00207144     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00207149608416068     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. American Medical Association, Council on Mental Health. (1958). Medical use of hypnosis [Report approved by Board of Trustees and House of Delegates of American Medical Association]. Journal of the American Medical Association, 168, 186-189.
2. American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs. (1985). Scientific status of refreshing recollection by the use of hypnosis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 253, 1918-1923.
3. Arons, H. (1967). Hypnosis in criminal investigations. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
4. Bartlett, Sir F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5. Boggs, B. C. (1993). Rethinking the ban on hypnotically enhanced testimony. Illinois Bar Journal, 81, 136-137.
6. Clemens, B. A. (1991). Hypnotically enhanced testimony: Has it lost its charm? Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 15, 289-320.
7. Commonwealth v. Smoyer, 476 A.2d 1304 (Pa. 1984).
8. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
9. Diamond, B. (1980). Inherent problems in the use of pretrial hypnosis on a prospective witness. California Law Review, 68, 313-349.
10. Dinges, D. F., Whitehouse, W. G., Orne, E. C., Powell, J. W., Orne, M. T., & Erdelyi, M. H. (1992). Evaluating hypnotic memory enhancement (hypermnesia and reminiscence) using multitrial forced recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1139-1147.
11. Emmett v. Ricketts/Creamer v. Hopper, 397 F. Supp. 102 (N.D. Ga. 1975).
12. Frye v. United States, 293 F.1013, 34 A.R. 145 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
13. Giannelli, P. C. (1994). Daubert: Interpreting the federal rules of evidence. Cardozo Law Review, 15, 1999-2026.
14. Giannelli, P. C. (1995). The admissibility of hypnotic evidence in U.S. courts. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 43, 212-233.
15. Harding v. State, 5 Md.App. 230, 246 A.2d 302 cert. den. 395 U.S. 949, 89 S. Ct. 2030; 23, L. Ed.2d 468 (1968).
16. Klatzky, R. L., & Erdelyi, M. H. (1985). The response criterion problem in tests of hypnosis and memory. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 33, 246-257.
17. Laurence, J.-R., & Perry, C. (1983). Forensic hypnosis in the late 19th century. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 31, 266-283.
18. Laurence, J.-R., & Perry, C. (1988). Hypnosis, will and memory: A psycho-legal history. New York: Guilford.
19. Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Mickenberg, I. (1983). The use of hypnotically-induced testimony incriminal trials. Syracuse Law Review, 34, 927.
21. Nogrady, H., McConkey, K. M., & Perry, C. (1983). Dissociation, duality, and demand characteristics in hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 223-235.
22. Orne, M. T. (1979). The use and misuse of hypnosis in court. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 37, 311-341.
23. Orne, M. T., Soskis, D. A., Dinges, D. F., Orne, E. C., & Tonry, M. H. (1985). Hypnotically refreshed testimony: Enhanced memory or tampering with evidence? In National Institute of Justice, Issues and practices in criminal justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
24. People v. Smrekar, 68 Ill. App.Sd 379, 385 N.E.2d 848 (4th D. 1979).
25. People v. Zayas, 131 Ill.2d 284 (1989).
26. Perry, C. (1992). Theorizing about hypnosis in either/or terms. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 40, 238-252.
27. Reiser, M. (1985). Investigative hypnosis: Scientism, memory tricks and power plays. In J. K. Zeig (Ed.), Ericksonian psychotherapy: Vol. 1. Structures (pp. 511-523). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
28. Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987).
29. Scheflin, A. W. (1994). Hypnosis and the law in the U.S. In B. J. Evans & R. O. Stanley (Eds.), Hypnosis and the law: Principles and practice (pp. 25-48). Heidelberg, Australia: Australian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.
30. State ex rel. Collins v. Superior Court, 644. P.2d 1266 (Ariz. 1982).
31. State v. Hungerford and v. Morahan, N.H.S. Ct. 94-S-045 through 94-S-047; 93-S-1734 through 93-S-1936 (1995).
32. State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. 1980).
33. State v. McClure, No. C91-0373 CR (Or. Cir. Ct. April 1993).
34. Tardi v. Henry, 212 Ill. App.3d 1027 (1991).
35. United States v. Narciso and Perez, 446 F Supp. 252 (E.D. Mich. 1977).
36. Whitehouse, W. G., Orne, E. C., Orne, M. T., & Dinges, D. F. (1991). Distinguishing the source of memories reported during prior waking and hypnotic recall attempts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 51-59.