NCJ Number
80370
Journal
Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume: 13 Issue: 4 Dated: (June 1981) Pages: 126-130
Date Published
1981
Length
5 pages
Annotation
This paper reviews cases in Australian and Canadian law that involve questioning under hypnosis and discusses when evidence obtained by hypnosis may be admitted in a criminal trial.
Abstract
Experts believe that there are fewer grounds for concern or for loss of confidence in statements derived under hypnosis than for statements given in a normal mental state. A person in a trance may be asked to recall past events, relive a certain incident, or respond to posthypnotic suggestion. The hypnotizing of a witness in court might possibly be permitted if both sides understood that hypnosis is to be used and were present and if a reliable recording were made of the proceedings. The recent case of Horvath (1979) 93 D.L.R. 1 is significant because the Supreme Court of Canada held that a confession to a crime induced by a skilled police investigator with a voice of hypnotic quality should be excluded as involuntary, either because the accused's mind was effectively broken down by the hypnotist or because the whole interrogation was oppressive. Three footnotes are provided.