Hypnosis

Question 1

State v Hurd

Answer 1

NJ Supreme Court 1980
Hypnotically enhanced interviews of VICTIMS are not a violation of due process, per se, in New Jersey. State must show reliability of recollections on a case by case basis.
Dr Orn introduced safeguards to protect the procedure.

Question 2

People v Shirley

Answer 2

CA Supreme Court 1982
EYEWITNESS post-hypnotic testimony is inadmissible in California, due to failure to meet the Frye standard of general acceptance in the scientific community.
Dr Orn’s safeguards were rejected.

Question 3

Rock v Arkansas

Answer 3

USSC 1987
Arkansas’ rule barring all hypnotically refreshed testimony by a DEFENDANT violated the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.
Testimony should be admitted on a case-by-case basis and cannot be barred automatically.

Rock shot her husband but had no recollection of it. In post-hypnotic testimony, she said a gun was fired. Gun was found to have a flaw.