This article is an electronic version of an article originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1998, Volume 15, Number 1, pages 77-82. Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from that of the bound volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic information in papers that you may write.

A Comment Upon the Debate Between Scheflin and Karlin and Orne on the Admissibility of Hypnotically Refreshed Testimony

Gilbert C. Hoover, IV, Esq.

 

Karlin and Orne's position supporting the per se exclusion of hypnotically refreshed testimony is plainly shaped by their experience of the use of hypnosis in therapeutic settings. They hold a sincere belief that more harm than good has been accomplished by the use of hypnosis as a means of recovering patients' memories of childhood abuse and advocate that the relevant professional psychotherapeutic societies should denounce the use of hypnosis as a means of "creating" memories of childhood abuse. From a lawyer's perspective, however, I am left questioning whether the dangers posed by the use of hypnotically refreshed testimony at trial cannot be addressed in a more flexible and just manner under traditional evidentiary standards than by a rule of per se exclusion.
 

Full text available through ICSA E-Library.