NCJ Number
86437
Journal
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology Volume: 26 Issue: 2 Dated: (1982) Pages: 133-137
Date Published
1982
Length
5 pages
Annotation
A clinical example of the hypnosis of a suspect indicates that cognitive material obtained through hypnosis is accurate, while interpretive data may not correspond to known facts.
Abstract
Although the New Jersey Supreme Court favors the admission of hypnotically induced testimony under specified guidelines, courts in Arizona, Minnesota, California, and Michigan have ruled that a person who has been hypnotized cannot later appear in court as a witness. Reasons for opposition to the admission of hypnotically induced testimony include the belief that hypnotic recall is contaminated and the conclusion from memory research that memories, even those of eyewitnesses, are fallible. Other researchers, however, present evidence that hypnosis has been critical in inducing valuable recall from witnesses. In most of these instances, cognitive recall (recall of digits, dates, words, smells, music, etc.) has been the primary interest. A clinical example from the authors' experience involved the hypnosis of a suspect who was unable or unwilling to recall whether he had any involvement in the murder of his wife. Under hypnosis, the suspect apparently relived the murder, as he cried, breathed heavily, and made emotional comments. Eventually, the subject recounted placing his wife's body in his pickup truck and carrying it to a remote and wooded area where he concealed it. The police subsequently found the body in that location. During the hypnotic trance, the subject also recounted a lengthy dialogue with his wife while she lay dying, although the autopsy concluded that death was instantaneous. This would indicate that under hypnosis, the subject may recreate previously recorded material in association with internal needs and unfulfilled fantasies. This suggests that subjective, interpretive material obtained under hypnosis must be considered unreliable unless supported by other data. Ten references are listed.