Play all audios:
The reliability of hypnosis in helping people remember things is a subject of considerable debate. Even when it can be shown to be useful, there is always the danger that a highly
suggestible person in a hypnotic state may “remember” things that never occurred. As a result, courts throughout the country have been extremely wary of admitting hypnosis-refreshed
testimony into criminal trials. On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court dipped a toe into the controversy by ruling that by refusing to admit all hypnosis-influenced testimony the Arkansas courts
had unconstitutionally deprived a criminal defendant of her right to due process of law. In the case at issue, Vicki Lorene Rock had been charged with manslaughter for the 1983 shooting
death of her husband. She contended that while she was struggling with her husband over a gun, the weapon went off accidentally and killed him. Under hypnosis, she recalled that she had not
put her finger on the trigger. But she was not allowed to testify to that, and was convicted. Without reaching the question of the reliability of hypnosis-refreshed testimony, the Supreme
Court held, 5 to 4, that Arkansas’ blanket refusal to admit such evidence was too broad. There may indeed be circumstances in which such evidence is not admissible and other circumstances in
which it is, and courts should distinguish the two. Criminal defendants should be allowed great leeway in introducing evidence that could exculpate them. It is not clear how widely the
Supreme Court’s opinion should be taken. It is significant that the excluded testimony in the case before it was testimony by the defendant herself. Typically, the hypnosis-refreshed
testimony in a criminal trial is testimony by a witness, which the prosecutor wants admitted and the defense does not. In Monday’s case the situation was reversed. California courts have
generally not allowed witnesses to testify on any matter that was mentioned during a hypnotic session. The Supreme Court correctly said that blanket prohibitions of this kind are suspect and
that each case should be decided on its own facts. MORE TO READ