Court Opinion

ID: 9721093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:48:19.373157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:23.386288
License: Public Domain

*926GARDNER, J .*
I concur.
Shirley is really more of a polemic than an opinion. As a polemic it makes interesting reading. The protagonists are so clearly defined.
The prohypnosis expert is a lowly police psychologist, wretchedly educated (“Ed. E”), who is, of all things, a director of a “proprietary school” in Los Angeles. (Just what that has to do with this case escapes me.) This police psychologist is so dumb that he accepts at “face value” and “without question” the “somewhat extravagant conclusions” of a neurosurgeon who is apparently pretty much of a dummkopf himself.
On the other hand, the antihypnosis experts are “highly experienced,” “nationally known,” “pioneers” and “respected authorities” who present the “generally accepted view” which is set forth in “scholarly articles” and “leading scientific studies.” Thus, the guys in the white hats and those in the black hats are clearly defined and appropriately labeled.
The authorities suffer the same treatment.
Somehow, lost in the shuffle, is the fact that the majority rule in this country is that hypnotically induced testimony is admissible. (See United States v. Awkard (9th Cir. 1979) 597 F.2d 667 cert. den., 444 U.S. 885 [62 L.Ed.2d 116, 100 S.Ct. 179]; United States v. Adams (9th Cir. 1978) 581 F.2d 193; United States v. Narciso (E.D.Mich. 1978) 446 F.Supp. 252; Clark v. State (1980 Fla.App.) 379 So.2d 372; Creamer v. State (1974) 232 Ga. 136 [205 S.E.2d 240]; People v. Smrekar (1979) 68 Ill.App.3d 379 [24 Ill.Dec. 707, 385 N.E.2d 848]; State v. McQueen (1978) 295 N.C. 96 [244 S.E.2d 414]; People v. Hughes (1979) 99 Misc.2d 863 [417 N.Y.S.2d 643]; State v. Jorgensen (1971) 8 Ore.App. 1 [492 P.2d 312]; Annot., Admissibility of Hypnotic Evidence at Criminal Trial (1979) 92 A.L.R.3d 442.)
These authorities hold that testimony of a witness whose memory has been revived through hypnosis should be treated like any other refreshed recollection. That the witness’ memory may have been impaired by hypnosis or that suggestive material may have been used to refresh his recollection is considered to be a matter affecting credibility, not admissibility. It is assumed that cross-examination will enable the jury to *927properly evaluate the effect of hypnosis on the witness and the credibility of his testimony.
According to Shirley, cases following that rule rely on an authority which “summarily disposed” of this issue with “little or no analysis.” The part I really like is the classification of all contra authorities as “moribund.” Somehow I visualize a huge stack of dying opinions, which, to borrow from John Randolph of Roanoke, “shine and stink like rotten mackeral in the moonlight.”
Of course the cases to the contrary are “well reasoned” and “leading.” Certainly.
The inevitability of the conclusion to be reached is revealed in the court’s reliance on an Arizona Supreme Court opinion which said that this type of testimony was to be inadmissible from “the time of the hypnosis session forward.” There is something terribly final about that phrase. It is reminiscent of Chief Joseph’s statement on his surrender to General Howard—“From where the sun sets, I will fight no more, forever. ”
Tom Paine would have loved Shirley.
However, much as I admire the writing style of Shirley, I am troubled by the concept that the testimony of a percipient witness as to relevant facts be deemed inadmissible simply because he has undergone hypnosis.
What next? Once we begin to rule evidence inadmissible because of our dissatisfaction with the witness’ credibility based on improper memory jogging, where do we stop? What about witnesses who have been brainwashed, coached, coerced, bribed or intimidated? Are we going to reject all this testimony because it is suspect? I have no doubt that a corrupt polygraph operator could convince a witness of limited intelligence that his accurate memory is actually faulty and thus persuade him to testify to an untruth. The same is true with the so-called truth serums, hallucinogenic drugs or other exotic drugs only hinted at in C.I.A. suspense fiction. I have no doubt that through the misuse of these drugs a witness’ testimony may become faulty and even suspect. Once having undergone exposure to something of this nature is the witness still going to be allowed to give his best recollection, or be precluded from testifying?
*928I am firmly of the belief that jurors are quite capable of seeing through flaky testimony and pseudoscientific claptrap. I quite agree that we should not waste our valuable court time watching witch doctors, voodoo practitioners or brujas go through the entrails of dead chickens in a fruitless search for the truth. However this is only because the practice is too time consuming and its probative value is zilch. I like the rule established in Frye v. United States (D.C.Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013, on the basis that it is a good pragmatic tool to keep out unnecessary, time consuming and nonproductive evidence. In other words I am a great believer in Evidence Code 352. However, the idea that an eyeball witness to a transaction be denied the opportunity to tell a jury his recollections of what he saw is disturbing to me whether that recollection has.been refreshed by hypnosis, truth serum, drugs, intimidation, coercion, coaching, brainwashing or impaired by the plain old passage of time.
Another aspect of Shirley disturbs me even more. In its modification Shirley determined that a defendant who submits to pretrial hypnosis may nevertheless testify (31 Cal.3d at p. 67). The idea that the predator may testify and yet his victim may not offends my sense of justice. It appears to me that the scales of justice are tilted—dangerously.
A petition for a rehearing was denied July 13, 1982, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 15, 1982.

 Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting under assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.