Court Opinion

ID: 9542771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:38:29.876288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:56.150874
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN, dissenting: Hard cases make bad law. This case is a prime example of the truthfulness of that adage. My colleagues find no difficulty admitting testimony that has been made probative, and, in fact, may well have been “retrieved” through a hypnosis process about which we know very little and for which there is no foundation found in the record. Although the objections that should have been made were not made, the majority opinion proceeds, not upon the basis of waiver, but upon the basis of merit. This is done because of the clear dilemma presented by the record. When counsel permits testimony to come in based upon “improved” memory due to hypnosis and makes no objection, even a kneejerk objection, serious questions as to competency of counsel could be raised. This is avoided, however, when the court proceeds to pass upon the merits of the issue and concludes that the testimony thus elicited is admissible and the procedures involved relate to the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony. Thus, for the first time in Illinois, testimony retrieved or enhanced by hypnosis is ruled admissible. There is no foundation in the record, there is no showing as to the scientific basis for hypnosis, there is no recording of the hypnosis sessions, there is nothing to establish that the testimony thus retrieved is substantially probative and an aid in the truth-seeking process. In an article on hypnosis, Monrose, Justice With Glazed Eyes, Juris Doctor 54, 56 (Oct./Nov. 1978), it is written: “Few people do know anything tangible about hypnosis. Despite modem hypnosis’s 200-year-old history, most information about it is still theoretical and shrouded in the obscurity of myth, misconception, and mystery. Even the term ‘hypnosis’ is a misnomer. Coined in the 1840s by James Braid, a Scottish surgeon, the word stems from the Greek hypnos, meaning ‘to sleep,’ and has thus perpetrated the canard that a person in an hypnotic trance is unconscious. The truth seems to be that while a person under hypnosis may appear to be asleep and to respond to the hypnotist with complete submission, he actually suffers no loss of will.” An article in the Wall Street Journal (June 27, 1978), Ronald Alsop, Clue That Is Buried In the Subconscious May Crack the Case, contained the following observation attributable to critics of hypnosis: “Critics of forensic hypnosis charge that it smacks of totalitarian mind-manipulation, and they warn that amateur hypnotists may conjure up ‘memories’ that are more fantasy than fact. ‘Well-meaning law-enforcement officers, under pressure to solve a case, might suggest memories that would help secure a conviction,’ says Robert Reiff, a psychologist and teacher at the University of Texas. He has sent Mailgrams to Attorney General Griffin Bell and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration expressing his qualms. Martin T. Ome, professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, warns that the . danger is very real. ‘The nature of hypnosis is such that you respond to suggestion,’ he says. ‘The same way I can help you refresh your memory, I also can help you construct memory where there isn’t any.’ Other critics say hypnosis is too ‘new-fangled and unreliable’ to be used in criminal proceedings where a defendant’s life may be at stake. Ephraim Margolin, a San Francisco attorney, tells of a client, an 18-year-old girl who confessed to murder under hypnosis, but later was cleared of the crime. ‘She just gave the police what she thought they wanted,’ says Mr. Margolin. He believes hypnosis is too technical to be trusted to policemen.” Criminal felony prosecution is a serious business and we have enough difficulty ascertaining truth. While I am not persuaded that the truth-seeking process is necessarily helped by the use of hypnosis, I certainly am persuaded that it is incumbent upon one who tenders testimony retrieved, enhanced, or obtained by hypnosis to establish what the procedure is, what its limitations are, and what such tinkering amounts to. Absent such foundation, the evidence is inadmissible. If one is to accept the reasoning of the majority, then voice print, truth serum, polygraph, or any other real or imagined way of judging truth would be rendered admissible with only the weight to be given to such testimony left for resolution by the trier of fact. Thus, I view this hard case to make bad law. Finally, there was error in the ruling by the trial court with reference to the discovery of the letters identified in the majority opinion as having been written by Witness II. The majority concedes that the letters were discoverable but concludes that the failure to comply with discovery was harmless in that there was no reasonable likelihood that the letters could have affected the verdict. In making that judgment they consider the identification testimony that should have been excluded. Query: Could we say that the verdict could not have been affected by the failure to disclose the Witness II letters as required by Brady v. Maryland (1963), 373 U.S. 83,10 L. Ed. 2d 215,83 S. Ct. 1194, if we exclude from the record the identification testimony? I submit the answer is that we cannot. For the stated reasons, I disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority. This defendant is entitled to a new trial.