Hypnosis is used more and more often to help witnesses remember events significant to a trial. 

Hypnosis Used Before Trial

Hypnosis is sometimes used before trial to enhance a witness’ recollection of events.  Courts have used a variety of approaches to dealing with hypnotically enhanced recollections. 

Enhanced Testimony Admissible.  Some courts allow the use of hynosis to refresh a witness’ recollection, and hold that the inherent diificulties with hypnosis go to the weight, rather than the admissibility of the evidence.{footnote}Wyller v. Fairchild Hiller Corp., 503 F.2d 506 (9th Cir. 1974); United States v. Waksal, 539 F. Supp. 834 (S.D. Fla. 1982), rev’d on other grounds, 709 F.2d 653 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v. Narciso, 446 F. Supp. 252 (E.D. Mich. 1977).
Creamer v. State, 232 Ga. 136, 205 S.E.2d 240 (1974); Pearson v. State, 441 N.E.2d 468, 473 (Ind. 1982); State v. Wren, 425 So.2d 756 (La. 1983); State v. Brown, 337 N.W.2d 138, 139 (N.D. 1983); State v. Glebeck, 616 S.W.2d 897 (Tenn. Cr. App. 1981); Prime v. State, 767 P.2d 149, 153 (Wyo. 1989) (witness who has been hypnotized not incompetent to testify); Chapman v. State, 638 P.2d 1280, 1284 (Wyo. 1982).

CHECK Beck v. Norris, 801 F.2d 242, 244 (6th Cir. 1986) (applying Tennessee law?);
CHECK State v. Greer, 609 S.W.2d 423 (Mo.Ct.App. 1980), vacated on other grounds, 450 U.S. 1027, 101 S.Ct. 1735, 68 L.Ed.2d 222 (1981) and cf. State v. Blackman, 826 S.W.2d 76, 79 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992) (witness who had undergone hypnosis using safeguards not allowed to testify).{/footnote}  Where a proseution witness’ memory has been refreshed through hypnosis, that fact must be disclosed to the defendant,{footnote}United States v. Adams, 581 F.2d 193 (9th Cir. 1978).{/footnote} and the defendant is entitled to bring this to the jury’s attention.{footnote}United States v. Awkard, 597 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1979).{/footnote}

Enhanced Testimony Admissible if Specific Procedures Followed.  Other courts admit hypnotically enhanced testimony, but only if procedural safeguards are followed, the best-known having been set forth by the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Hurd:{footnote}86 N.J. 525, 432 A.2d 86, 89-90 (1981) (based on safeguards suggested by Dr. Martin Orne, an expert witness for the defense).
            See also United States v. Valdez, 722 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir. 1984); Sprynczynatyk v. General Motors Corp., 771 F.2d 1112 (8th Cir. 1985). 
            See also State v. Butterworth, 246 Kan. 541, 552-55, 792 P.2d 1049S, 1057-58 (1990); State v. Woodfin, 539 So.2d 645, 649  (La. Ct. App. 1989) (following Hurd); House v. State, 445 So.2d 815, 827 (Miss. 1984); State v. Varela, 112 N.M. 538, 542, 817 P.2d 731, 735 (Ct. App.) (following Hurd), cert. denied, 816 P.2d 509 (1991); State v. Beachum, 97 N.M. 682, 643 P.2d 246 (1981); State v. Boykin, 432 N.W.2d 60, 67 (S.D. 1988); State v. Yapp, 45 Wash. App. 601, 603-04, 726 P.2d 1003, 1005 (Ct. App. 1986); State v. Long, 32 Wash. App. 732, 649 P.2d 845 (1982); State v. Armstrong, 110 Wis.2d 555, 329 N.W.2d 386, 389, cert. denied, 461 U.S. 946, 103 S.Ct. 2125, 77 L.Ed.2d 1304 (1983)

77 ALR4th 927, 31 ALR4th 1239.

Cf. Little v. Armontrout, 835 F.2d 1240 (8th Cir. 1987) (post-hypnotic identification only admissible where hypnosis conducted with proper safeguards and identification corroborated).

 Check  People v. Zayas, 131 Ill. 2d 284, 546 N.E.2d 513 (1989); Tardi v. henry, 212 Ill. App.3d 1027, 1036-37, 571 N.E.2d 1020, 1025-26 (App. Ct. 1991).

CHECK State v. Iwakiri, 106 Idaho 618, 682 P.2d 571 (1984.{/footnote}

(1) The hypnotic session should be conducted by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist trained in the use of hypnosis.
(2) The qualified professional conducting the hypnotic session should be independent of and not responsible to the prosecutor, investigator or the defense.
(3) Any information given to the hypnotist by law enforcement personnel prior to the hypnotic session should be in written form so that subsequently the extent of the information the subject received from the hypnotist may be determined.
(4) Before induction of hypnosis, the hypnotist should obtain from the subject a detailed description of the facts as the subject remembers them, carefully avoiding adding any new elements too the witness’ [sic] description of the events.
(5) All contacts between the hypnotist and thhe subject should be recorded so that a permanent record is available for comparison and study to establish that the witness has not received information or suggestion which might later be reported as having been first described by the subject during hypnosis.  Videotape should be employed if possible, but should not be mandatory.
(6) Only the hypnotist and the subject should be present during any phase of the hypnotic session, including the pre-hypnotic testing and the post-hypnotic interview.{footnote}See generally Orne, The Use and Misuse of Hypnosis in Court, 27 Int’l J. Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 311 (1979).{/footnote}

The court in Hurd required the state to prove compliance with these procedures by clear and convincing evidence.{footnote}432 A.2d at 90.{/footnote}

It has been pointed out that while the Hurd safeguards minimize the risk of suggestibility, they do little to reduce the inherent risk of false or distorted recollection.{footnote}People v. Gonzalez, 108 Mich. App. 145, 159, 310 N.W.2d 306, 313 (Ct. App. 1981), aff’d, 329 N.W.2d 743 (Mich. 1982); State v. Brown, 337 N.W.2d 138, 150 (N.D. 1983){/footnote}  The Hurd guidelines have also been criticized as overly complicated and unworkable.{footnote}State v. Brown, 337 N.W.2d 138, 150 (N.D. 1983).

CHECK Chapman v. State, 638 P.2d 1280, 1283 (Wyo. 1982); People v. Shirley, 31 Cal. 3d 18, 723 P.2d 1354, 181 Cal. Rptr. 243, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860 (1982).{/footnote}

Oregon has enacted statutory requirements for the admission of such testimony.{footnote}Or.Rev.State. § 136.675 (1981); State v. King, 84 Or. App. 165, 175-77, 733 P.2d 472, 479-80 (Ct. App. 1987).{/footnote}

It has been held that where the requisite procedures have not been followed, the witness’s testimony may be admitted to the extent it is consistent with the witness’s pre-hypnotic statements.{footnote}State v. Dreher, 251 N.J. Super. 300, 309, 598 A.2d 216, 220 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991), cert. denied, 606 A.2d 374 (1992).{/footnote}

Only Matters Recalled Before Hypnosis Admissible.  The majority of courts have found hypnotically-enhanced testimony too unreliable to be admitted, but will allow testimony as to matters which the witness remembered and related before the hynosis.{footnote}Contreras v. State, 718 P.2d 129, 139 (Alaska 1986); State ex rel. Neely v. Sherrill, 165 Ariz. 508, 512, 799 P.2d 849, 853 (1990) (only recollection recorded prior to hypnosis admissible); People v. Clark, 3 Cal. 4th 41, 150, 833 P.2d 561, 622, 10 Cal .Rptr. 2d 554, 615 (1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1604 (1993); Walraven v. State,255 Ga. 276, 282, 336 S.E.2d 798, 803 (1985); State v. Moreno, 68 Haw. 233, 236, 709 P.2d 103, 105 (1985); State v. Seager, 341 N.W.2d 420, 431 (Iowa 1983); Calhoun v. State, 297 Md. 563, 577, 468 A.2d 45, 51, cert. denied, 466 U.S. 993 (1983); Commonwealth v. Kater, 412 Mass. 800, 802, 592 N.E.2d 1328, 1329 (1992); People v. Lee, 434 Mich. 59, 85, 450 N.W.2d 883, 895 (clear and convincing evidence required), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 879 (1990); State v. Palmer, 224 Neb. 282, 298, 399 N.W.2d 706, 719 (1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872 (1987); People v. Schreiner, 77 N.Y.2d 733, 739 n. 2, 573 N.E.2d 552, 555 n. 2, 570 N.Y.S.2d 464, 467 n. 2 (1991); State v. Annadale, 329 N.C. 557, 570, 406 S.E.2d 837, 845 (1991); Robinson v. State, 677 P.2d 1080, 1085 (Okla. Crim. App.) (wintess not allowed to make post-hypnotic identification of perpetrator where no such identification made before hypnosis), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1246 (1984).

CHECK Daniels v. State, 528 N.E.2d 775, 777 (Ind. 1988) (court held  hypnotically enhanced testimony to be unreliable, and that issue is whether witness has sufficient basis for identification independent of the hypnosis), cert. granted and judgment vacated by 491 U.S. 902 (1989);  State v. Iwakiri, 106 Idaho 618, 653, 682 P.2d 571, 606 (1984);

CHECK Stave v. Pollit, 205 Conn. 61, 81, 530 A.2d 155, 165 (1987) (trial testimony must be consistent with pre-hypnotic recollection); Odem v. State, 483 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992); State v. Seager, 341 N.W.2d 420 (Iowa 1983); State v. Grimmett, 459 N.W.2d 515, 517 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990) (witness in criminal case may not testify to matters recalled during hypnosis); State v. Pierce, 263 S.C. 23, 207 S.E.2d 414, 418 (1974); State v. Tuttle, 780 P.2d 1203, 1211 (Utah 1989); Archie v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 684, 692, 420 S.E.2d 718, 723 (Ct. App. 1992).

{/footnote}    Some of these courts, however, require that there be some reliable means for determining the witness’ pre-hypnotic recollection.{footnote}CHECK Elliotte v. State, 515 A.2d 677, 681 (Del. 1986) (witness may only testify to events recalled prior to hypnosis; pretrial hearing should be conducted to determine whether hypnosis has impaired defendant’s ability to cross-examine the witness).

CHECK Stokes v. State, 548 So.2d 188, 196 (Fla. 1989) (witness may only testify to matters recalled before hypnosis; hypnotic session must be properly recorded).
{/footnote}

Entire Testimony Inadmissible.  Other courts go so far as to hold that because one under hypnosis is very susceptible to suggestion, the person’s entire testimony on the subject matter is thereafter per se inadmissible.{footnote}CHECK State ex rel. Collins v. Superior Court, 132 Ariz. 180, 644 P.2d 1266 (1982) (en banc); People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18, 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 641 P.2d 775, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860, 103 S.Ct. 133, 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982); People v. Quintanar, 659 P.2d 710 (Colo. App. 1982); Bundy v. State, 471 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1985); Collins v. State, 52 Md. App. 186, 447 A.2d 1272 (1982); People v. Gonzales, 415 Mich. 615, 329 N.W.2d 743 (1982); State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. 1980); State v. Blackman, 826 S.W.2d 76, 79 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992) (witness who had undergone hypnosis using safeguards not allowed to testify); State v. Palmer, 210 Neb. 206, 313 N.W.2d 648 (1981); People v. Hughes, 59 N.Y.2d 523, 466 N.Y.S.2d 255, 453 N.E.2d 484 (1984); State v. Peoples, 311 N.C. 515, 319 S.E.2d 177 (1984); Com. v. Nazarovitch, 496 Pa. 97, 436 A.2d 170 (1981); Commonwealth v. Reed, 400 Pa. Super. 207, 226, 583 A.2d 459, 468 (Super. Ct. 1990) (finding hypnotic enhancement of recollection did not meet Frye standard).

CHECK See also United States v. Valdez, 722 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir. 1984) (reversing conviction due to admission of post-hypnotic identification). {/footnote}   Check all these cases‑Entire testimony disallowed?  All testimony on same subject matter?  Just enhance recollection excluded?

Case-by-Case Approach.  Finally, some courts require the trial court to weigh the reliability of hynotically enhanced testimony on a case-by-case basis, examining such factors as whether the hypnotic session was suggestive, the expertise of the hypnotist, and whether the enhanced testimony is corroborated.{footnote}McQueen v. Garrison, 814 F.2d 951 (4th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 944 (1987).
            Chamblee v. State, 527 So.2d 173, 177 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988); People v. Romero, 745 P.2d 1003, 1016 (Colo. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 990 (1988); State v. Johnson, 39 Ohio St. 3d 48, 53, 529 N.E.2d 898, 905 (1988); Zani v. State, 767 S.W.2d 825, 835-38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989).
            See also  State v. Joubert, 603 A.2d 861, 867 (Me. 1992) (allowing police sketch based on hynottically enhanced recollection where no danger of improper influence; defendant not a suspect at time sketch was made).{/footnote} 

Criminal Cases.  A criminal defendant has the constitutional right under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to introduce his own hynotically-enhanced testimony.{footnote}CHECK Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 97 L. Ed 2d 37, 107 S. Ct. 2704 (1987)[was hypnosis before or during trial]{/footnote} 

Hypnosis Used at Trial

Hypnotically-induced testimony has been held inadmissible due to what courts perceive to be its unreliability,{footnote}CHECK People v. Zayas, 131 Ill. 2d 284, 137 Ill. Dec. 568, 546 N.E.2d 513 (1989) [was hypnosis before or during trial]{/footnote}

Videotape of Hypnotic Interview

Courts have held that videotapes of hypnotic interviews are inadmissible for the purpose of proving the facts recounted by the hynotized person.{footnote}Sprynczynatyk v. General Motors Corp., 771 F.2d 1112 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572.

State v. Brown, 337 N.W.2d 138, 153 (N.D. 1983) (en banc); State v. Beachum, 643 P.2d 246, 254 (N.M. App. 1981).{/footnote}

Expert Testimony

Because it is improper to offer evidence for the purpose of bolster a witness’ general credibility before it has been attacked, it has been held that a party introducing hypnotically refreshed testimony cannot offer expert opinion testimony as to the reliability of hypnosis unless and until the use of hypnosis has been attacked.{footnote}United States v. Awkard, 597 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1979).  Check 50 ALR Fed. 602.{/footnote}