Admissibility and per se exclusion of hypnotically elicited recall in american courts of law

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 266-279

  Perry, Campbell ^a  

^a Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; COURT; HYPNOSIS; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; MULTICHANNEL RECORDER; RECALL;

EID: 0030992305     PISSN: 00207144     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00207149708416128     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Boggs, B. C. (1993). Rethinking the ban on hypnotically enhanced testimony. Illinois Bar Journal, 81, 136-137.
2. Borawick v. Shay and Shay, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Docket #94-7584 (1994).
3. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 570 (S.D. Cal. 1989).
4. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 951 F.2d 1128 (9th Cir. 1991).
5. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
6. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 34 A.L.R. 145 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
7. Furedy, J. J. (1989). The North American CQT polygraph and the legal profession: A case of Canadian credulity and a cause for cultural concern. Criminal Law Quarterly, 31, 431-451.
8. Giannelli, P. C., & Imwinkelried, E. J. (1993). Scientific evidence (2nd ed.). Charlottesville, VA: Michie.
9. Hammond, D. C., Garver, R. B., Mutter, C. B., Crasilneck, H. B., Frischholz, E., Gravitz, M. A., Hibler, N. S., Olsen, J., Scheflin, A., Spiegel, H., & Wester, W. (1995). Clinical hypnosis and memory: Guidelines for clinicians and for forensic hypnosis. Des Plaines, IL: American Society of Clinical Hypnosis Press.
10. Isely v. Capuchin Province et al., WL 104310 (D. Mich. 1995).
11. Laurence, J.-R., & Perry, C. (1988). Hypnosis, mill, and memory: A psycho-legal history. New York: Guilford.
12. Nogrady, H., McConkey, K. M., & Perry, C. (1985). Enhancing visual memory: Trying hypnosis, trying imagination, and trying again. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 195-204.
13. Ofshe, R., & Watters, E. (1994). Making monsters: False memories, psychotherapy and sexual hysteria. New York: Scribner.
14. 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 (pp. 1-62). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
15. Orne, E. C., Whitehouse, W. G., Dinges, D. F., & Orne, M. T. (1996). Memory liabilities associated with hypnosis: Does low hypnotizability confer immunity? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 44, 354-369.
16. Pendergrast, M. (1995). Victims of memory: Incest accusations and shattered lives. Hinesburg, VT: Upper Access.
17. Perry, C., Orne, M. T., London, R. W., & Orne, E. C. (1996). Rethinking per se exclusions of hypnotically elicited recall as legal testimony. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 44, 66-81.
18. People v. Ebanks, 117 Cal. 652, 40 LRA 269, 49 P. 1049 (1897).
19. Rock v. Arkansas, 107 S. Ct. 2704 (1987).
20. Shahzade v. Gregory, U.S. Dist. Ct. Mass. No. 92-12139-EHF, Memorandum and Order (May, 1996).
21. State v. Dean, Wis., 307 N.W.2d 628 (Wis. 1981).
22. State v. Hungerford and v. Morahan, State of New Hampshire, Hillsborough County, S. Ct. 94-S-045 thru 94-S-047 (Hungerford) 93-S-1734 thru 93-S-1936 (1995).
23. State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d (Minn. 1980).
24. State v. Stanislawski, 216 N.W.2d 8 (1974).
25. United States v. Posado, Ramirez and Hurtado, 57 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 1995).
26. Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (1994). Return of the faries: An investigation into recovered memory therapy. Chicago and LaSalle, IL: Open Court.
27. Williams, L. M. (1993, October). Recall of childhood trauma: A prospective study of women's memories of child sexual abuse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Phoenix, AZ.