NCJ Number
101415
Journal
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Volume: 55 Issue: 4 Dated: (April 1986) Pages: 22-29
Date Published
1986
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article identifies problems inherent in using hypnosis to enhance witness recall, discusses rules adopted by State and Federal courts to determine the admissibility of posthypnotic testimony, and suggests procedural safeguards when hypnosis is used as an investigative tool.
Abstract
Inaccuracies associated with hypnotic recall cannot necessarily be blamed on the individual, but are attributable to problems involving hypersuggestibility, hypercompliance, and confabulation that are inherent in the hypnotic process. The article analyzes State and Federal appellate court decisions regarding the admission of posthypnotic testimony into four categories: prior hypnosis is viewed as an issue affecting credibility, not admissibility; admissibility is contingent on a showing of reliability; any testimony based on hypnotic recall is inadmissible, while testimony related to events recalled prior to hypnosis is admissible; and prior hypnosis is an absolute bar to admissibility. If investigators are unsure of a court's position, they should use hypnosis only in situations where the potential gain outweighs the risk of prejudice and where traditional methods have failed. Investigators also should follow safeguards announced in State v. Hurd by using a licensed, trained psychologist or psychiatrist. The reliability of the process can be improved if the subject and the hypnotist are not aware of the identities of any potential suspects. 49 footnotes.