The Previously Hypnotized Witness: Is His Testimony Admissible?
| Author | by Captain John L. Plotkin |
| Pages | 04 |
This article emmines the admissibility at a court-martial aJ the testimony OJ a witnem hypmfixed in the course of the pretrial investigation. It d i s w e s the relationship of hypnosis and human. memory, the potential impact of hypnosis on a witness, and the con-flicting judicia! approaches to the testimony oJa previmsly hypmtked witness. Tha article concludes that, although the we OJ hyp-nosis involves risb oJmemry distortion, the witness may testify if theprobative value of his testimony is m t substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact n the finder oJ fact.
-
INTRODUCTION
In the last fifteen years, the use of hypnosis as an adpnct to criminal investigations has increased, and the admissibility of the testimony of witne~~eswho have previously undergone hypnosis has occasioned considerable debate in medical, legal, and law enforcement circles.' The parties to the debate run the gamut from the unrelenting foe of investigative hypnosis to the enthusiastic proponent.2 They have conducted the debate in the pages of scientific
'Judge Advocate Genemri Carps, Umfed Stares Army Currently -signed m Senlor Defense Counlel, US Army Trlal Defense Sewlee. Butzbaeh meld Office. 1984 to date Farmerb asaimed as Appellate Attorney, Government Appellate Dhi-Qmn, US Army Legal Services Agency, 1880-83, Trial Counsel, Asssrant Admmo-tI*tIveLBw Officer, Chief of MihfawJuiIlce. OffieeoftheStaffJudge Advocale. U S.Army Avlatlon Center. Fort Rueker, Alabama, 1878 80 J D , Rutgerr Kniversity, 1977, B A.. GettYIburg College, 1974. Completed 326 Judge Advacate Officer Gmduate Course, 1884, 86th Judge AdvocareOfficer Basic Course. 1978 Admittedto practee before the bars of the United Sfatel Supreme Coun. the United Stales Court of MLlItaw Appeals. the U.S Army Court of Mlhtary Review. and the State of New Jeney. Thuartlcle wmoriginaUyaubmiftedassrhesu~npanial~atlafactianofthe reqUlrement8 of the 326 Judge Advocate Offieer Graduate Course l H ~ n ~ ~ I s ww used YI the investigation of such case8
t h i Mefropohran Opera
House murder. see Sew York Tunes, Om 14. 1880, 5 6. at 1, eo1 1, the Chawehilla. CaYornla, school bur kidnapping, People V. Schoenfeld, I l l Cal ADP 36 671, 168 Cal Rptr. 762(I880) See"lheSvengahS~uad."Time,Sept 13. l876,af56,Kroger& Douce, Hymmis %n Cnmtnol Inuesllgalum. 27 Int'l J Curucsl & Expenmental Hyp-nOSE 358, 367-68 (1979). and the La3 Angelel Hlllslde Strangier murders. me NewYorkTmes. Dec 2, 1877, at 16. CDI 6sCompave W Hibbard & R Worrlng, Forensic HlpnoJls (1881) and H.
Arons, Hyp- noals y1 Cminai lnve~figafion (1967)with Diamond, 1n-t Pmblona in Urr of
RBlriOl Hypnmu mt a Prweclzve Wilwas. 68 Cal L. Rev 313 (1980)
-
jo~rnals,~of the law re~iews.~of periodicals published for the prac-
ticing bench and bar,l and of the popular press.e As investigators have increasingly employed hypnosis to "enhance" or to "refresh" the memories of witnesses, the judiciary, particularly state courts, have entered the debate. As of early 1984, the appellate courts of Arizona,' Flonda,lo Georgia," Iliinois,'x In-
sBculm'a Tool?, Tnal, Ocf. 1981. at 42. Sannito & MueUer, he Use of Hypno~C an 0
DoubleUowhwhisrDe, Mal Diplomacy J., Fall 1880, at 30.
'In thiq;ategory are much articles 89 Harvey,
''Hyzmc& A CImk Cotoher, A Heal-in0 An. MLLltan Pobee. Winter 883. at 10: %knee. Oet. 14. 1883 at 184. "The S&aU SquPd;''Tmc, sum note I, 'Hypnosis. 'Cselul In Medlelne, Dan8emus m Court,''' US
Newa 8 World Report. Dec 12, 1983. at 67. New York Timer, Jul 10. 1883 at E8 coI I Ocl 14 1880. at C1 eo1 I
Young, 136 A h . 437, 661 P.2d 1138 (Anc. App 1982)
'People V. Shdey, 31 Cal3d 18, 181 Cal. Rptr 243, 641 P 26 775 le" banc). cwt dsnied, 103 S Cf. 133 (1882): People v Adams, 137 Cal App 36 368. 187 Cal. Rptr 505(1882]; People V. Parkan, 137Cal App.3d538, 187Cal. Rptr 123 ll98Z): People V. Whma, 132 Cal App 3d 920, 183 Cd.
Rptr. 488 (19821, State Y Aqumo, 131 Cal
App.3d 866, I82 Cnl. Rptr. 656 (1882)
~Peoplc V. htrlet Court. 652 P 2d 682 (Colo 1882) (en banc), People v Qumtanar, 658 P 26 710 (Colo App. 1882).
%rum V. State, 433 Sa Id 1384 m. Abp 5th Dist 19831, Key v State, 430 So.2d SQ8 In.
App. 1st Dsf. 1883): Brown V. State 426 Sa.Zd 76 (h.
App 1st Dist. 19831,
Clnrk v Stale, 378 &.2d 373 1%. App. 1st Duf 1878)
"Creamer V. State, 232 Ga 136, 205 S E 26 240 (18741
"People Y. G l h n , 117 1U. App 36 270. 72 111. Dec 672, 462 N.E.2d 1368 11863): People Y Smrekm, 68 01 App.3d 378, 24 01. Dec. 707, 385 N E 26 848 (18781
diana,l8 Kan8as,l5 Louisiana,1B Maine," Maryland,LB
Massa- chusetts,'* Michigan,lo Mississippi,zz Missouri,zB Nebraska,24 New New Merico,lB New York,*' North Cam
"State > Seager 341 U B 26 410 (lira 18831
"Stale I Willlami 225 Kan 646 630 P 26 684 (1981)'"andry \ Bill Garrett Chevroler, Inc , 434 So 26 1103 (La 15831 (mem ),?et p430 So 2d 1061 (La App 19831, Stare v Maare. 432 So 26 208 (La 15831, State 7, Wren, 425 So 26 716 (La 18831, Slate Y Culpepper, 434 So 2d 76 (La App 1982).
"Stale \ Carnrneau. 438 A.2d 454 (Me 1531)lsStafe \ Collms. 256 Md 670, 464 A 2d 1028 115831. W g
52 Md App 186, 447
A 2d 1272 (19821, State 5 Merscher. 464 A 2d 1062 (Md App 1983). Harker I State. 51 >Id App 460.463 A 26 288 (1883) Norwood I State, 55 Md ADP 503. 462 A 26 83 (1583), Polk \ State, 48 \Id App 382, 427 A 2d 1041 (15811, State Y Temoney, 45 Md App 565.414 A 2d 240 (1880) tacated m? other moiinds. 280 Md 251 429 A 2d 1018 (18811. Hardingi Sfaie. 5 Md App 230, 246 A Id 302 (1968), cerf hid 395 C S 945 (1965)
IsCommonwealth > Broulllef. 385 Yhsr 605. 451 U E 2d 128 115831 Common
(Minn 15801
**Houne % State, 34 Crun L Rpfr 2425 (Miss Jan 25, I5841'%afei Little 34Cnm L Rpfr 23S0(Mo App ED Jan 3 15841, Starer Greer. 509 S W 2d 423 (>lo App W D 1580). vacated on other mounds 450 K S 1027 i l 4 R l i ,...~
"St~fe v Hutchmian 98 1
M 616, 661 P 26 1315 (19831. State v Beachum, 87 \ Y 682 643 P 2d 246 (App 19811l'People v Hughes, 55 \i I 26 523, 453 1
E 26 484 466 S Y S 26 255. W g
88 App
D n 2d 17, 452 5 Y S 2d (4th Dep r 1883). People Y McAfee, App. Dn 2d 858 463 K Y S 26 516 (36 Dep'f 1583). People I Boudm. 118 Mise 26 230, 460 1
Yeb 206, 313 h W 2d 648 (18811
Y S 26 878
(Sup CL Rockland County 15831, People v Smith 117 Mlse.2d 737. 455 N Y 5.26 528 (Sup Ct Dufcheri County 1983). People Y Lucar. 107 Xrsc 2d 231 436 1
Y S 2d 461
(Sup Cr New York County 1880). People v McDowell. 103 Mise 2d 831, 427 l.Y S 26 181 (Sup Ct OnondagaCaunfy10801. People\ Lewis lO3Msc Zd 8SI. 427K Y S 2d I77 (Sup Cf her York County 1980)
lina,28 Korth Dakota,lB Oklahoma,30 Penns~lvania,~~ Ten- nes~ee,~~
Washington,34 Wiscon~in,~~and Wyoming3' have considered the propriety of permitting a witness who has hypnotized prior to trial to testify on the merits. The United States Courts of Ap-peal for the Second,37 Fifth,s8 Ninth,3' and District of Columbia Circuit~,'~as well as several United States district have also considered a variety of evidentiary questions generated by the use of hypnosis
Although they have not experienced the increasing use of hypnosis or the explosion of litigation that has accompmed it, the m-ed farces of the United States have also become involved with the issue of hypnosis. The law enforcement agencies of the three services-the Air Farce Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIC), andthe United States Naval Investigative Services (NIS)-have all promulgated policies regulating the employment of hypno~is.'~
They
have, however, used hypnosis sparingly. One study concludes that
"State Y Watera. 308 K C 348. 302 S E 26 188 (1983); State v Megueen, 294 XC 96,244SE 2d414(1978):Statev.Pe0pleS.60NC App.474.288SE2d311,pptif~ allolL'ed. 308 K C 183, 302 S E.2d 247 (1883)
*'State V. Brown, 337 X.W.2d I38 (B.D. 1983).
WRobinron V. State, 34 CTM L. Rpfr 2337 (Okla App. Jan. 13, 18841, Stafford V. State. 669 P.2d 285 (Okla. App. 1983).
"State v. Luther, 63 Or. App 56, 663 P.2d 1261 (1983). State Y. Jorgenlen, 8 Or. App. 1, 492 P 2d 312 (1871).
S*Commoowealrh v Nmovilch, 496 Pa 97,436 A.2d 170 (1881), Commonwealth V. McCabe. 303 Pa Super 245, 449 A.2d 670 (1983). Commonwealth V. Taylor, 249
Pa. Super. 171. 439 A 2d SO3 (1982).
Wmte Y. Glebock, 616 S W.2d 897 Venn App. 1881)."State v Manm, 33 Wash. App. 486, 6% P 2d 526 (1882). Stale V. Long, 32 Wash App. 732, 648 P.2d 846 (1852).srStaIe Y. Armstrong, 110 Ws 2d 655, 329 N.W 2d 356 (19531, State Y White. 26 C m L. Rptr. 2168 (Milwaukee Counry Cir. Ct. Mar. 27, 1979)
"Gee v State. 662 P 2d 103 (Wyo 1983): Chapman Y State. 638 P 26 1280 IWya 1982)
Wnited State. Y Miller, 411 F 26 825 IZd Clr 1968) "L'nlted States I
Valdez. 722 F 2d 1186 (5th Cf 18841: Connolly v Fmec, 484
F 2d 456 (5th Clr 1973)
"Kmted Statel v Awkward. 587 F.2d 667 (8th Cir I, oen. denzed, 444 C S 885
(1819). Ended States Y Adams. 681 F 2d 193 (8th Cir ), c d dendd, 439 U 8 1006 (1978). Kline v Ford Motor Co , 523 F 26 1067 (8th Cu 1975); WyUer V. Fairchlld Hiller Carp , 503 F.2d 506 (9th Cir 1971)
*"United Stater v Brooks. 677 F 26 907 (D C Cir 1882)"UnaedSfafesv Charles, 561 F Supp 694(U Tex. L933), UnitedStaleiv. Waksal. 538F Supp 834(U Fla 18S2).reu'danolhermaundg,708F2d653(IlthClr 1983), United Stsfeiv Narosa. 4468 Supp 252 (U Mich 1877). Emmeffv Rickefe, 397F. Supp 1025lD Ga 1975)
V e e As Force Reg 124-4, Foremie Hypnoala (17 Dec 1981). CIDR 195.1. CID Operanom App 9 (Ch. 2, 14 Jan 1883) +IS Iouestigalars Handbook, para 1821
AFOSI used it aniy ten times from March 1978 to February 1980, or in approximately .07 percent of the investigations conducted in the same period. and only five times m the preceding eight years.'S TheNIS used hypnosis six times from January 1978 to February 1980, and three times in the preceding three years." Flnaiiy, USACIC wed hypnosis at least twelve times from 1876 to February l&480.46
Hypnosis has played an even...
To continue reading
Request your trial