Court Opinion

ID: 9569608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:15:36.309853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:35.519689
License: Public Domain

BROWN, Justice,
dissenting, with whom ROSE, Chief Justice, joins.
I disagree with the majority’s disposition of this case. Stripped of its veneer, this *1287case holds that a police officer who occasionally plays around with hypnotism can manipulate the recall of a witness and receive the blessing of this court.
The admission in evidence of hypnotically enhanced testimony developed by experts is suspect, even under correct scientific procedures. The admission of hypnotically enhanced testimony, developed by a rank amateur absent any scientific procedure is totally unreliable.
The majority has totally failed to recognize, or even consider, the potential for abuse and the unreliability of hypnotically enhanced testimony.
A few facts need be added to those delineated by the majority. The so-called hypnotist in this case was a police officer. He testified that he had been interested in hypnosis “for quite some time.” He was “exposed to it in more depth * * * about January of ’80,” at the Arson Investigation Seminar, “and subsequent training classes for arson.” Sometime in August or September of 1980, the hypnotist took training from Dave Harrington of the State Fire Marshal’s Office and from J. P. Johnston, a Cheyenne attorney, one of whom certified him as a hypnotist. We don’t know what authority Harrington or Johnston had to certify anyone, nor do we know if this certification was recognized by anyone or any entity. For all we know this certification could have been written on the back of an envelope extracated from the wastepaper basket. Certification must not have been a memorable event in the life of the hypnotist, as he was not even sure who did it.
The hypnotist estimated that he had hypnotized “in the vicinity of two dozen” subjects for practice before hypnotizing Logan. The first person he hypnotized in the course of a criminal investigation was Logan, and he did so approximately one month after receiving his training. The hypnotist has no degree in psychology, nor has he had any college or university courses in psychology or psychiatry. The only training in psychology that he claims to have had was obtained in various classes in police and arson training.
One of the video tapes made at the hypnotic session was totally inaudible. It was testified that 60 percent of the other two tapes could be heard “if you listened very closely”. The hypnotist thought notes were taken at the session because he always liked to have two witnesses present taking notes at his sessions. The upshot of all this was that no one at trial ever saw any notes and the video tapes were of ho use whatsoever.
The writer of this dissent knows the hypnotist personally. He is a well-qualified law enforcement officer and his honesty and integrity are not in question, but his skills as a hypnotist, and the reliability of the procedures used here, are totally deficient.
I
Webster’s dictionary defines hypnosis as “a state that resembles normal sleep but differs in being induced by the suggestions and operations of the hypnotizer with whom the hypnotized subject remains in rapport and responsive to his suggestions * * 1 There are many descriptions of hypnosis and hypnotism, but all include the idea that the subject of hypnosis is highly susceptible to suggestion.2
Man has known of the phenomenon of hypnosis for many years. It was practiced in ancient times and primitive societies. In *1288the past, hypnotism was associated with theatrical exhibitions, carnival fakery and fiction.3
The most famous case of a subject of hypnotism who imagined an event under hypnosis is that of “Bridey Murphy,” a woman who supposedly was “age regressed” to a prior incarnation under hypnosis.4 In fact, she had inserted into a memory bank facts which came from an entirely different part of her life. Bridey Murphy led one leading authority on hypnosis to observe that the case “shows that memories revived under hypnosis no matter how convincing to the subject, cannot be trusted until verified by external criteria. The ‘will-to-believe’ may be so strong in the hypnotist as well as in the subject as to give the impression of validity.” 5
Within the last 35 years hypnotism has taken on a measure of respectability. In the mid-1950’s the British and American Medical Associations formally approved hypnotism’s medical use, and in recent years a minority of psychiatrists have used hypnosis to treat mental and emotional conditions.6
Hypnotism is accepted by some as an investigative tool. It undoubtedly has value when used to enhance memory in investigations.7 However, investigators must realize that the use of hypnosis for such purposes may render the potential witness incompetent by destroying the probative value of any evidence that might otherwise have been produced.8
Granted that hypnosis is a valuable medical therapy tool, and also has a function in investigation, it is an entirely different matter when hypnosis is employed to enhance the recall of a prospective witness. It seems that it is a big jump from therapy and investigation to enhancing memory without better information than the courts have had in the past. Because a person under hypnosis is highly susceptible to suggestion, we must be very cautious in our approval of hypnotically enhanced recall.
In Dr. Bernard L. Diamond’s law review article, “Inherent Problems in the Use of Pretrial Hypnosis on a Prospective Witness,” 68 Cal.L.Review 313, he concludes:
“Many courts currently admit testimony from previously hypnotized witnesses without an adequate understanding of the nature of hypnosis and its dangers to truly independent recall. Perhaps influenced by often naive legal scholarship and biased expert testimony, these courts apparently believe that cross-examination *1289and expert witness attacks on the credibility of such testimony will reveal any shortcomings in the hypnosis and get to the truth. This hope is misplaced. Even if the hypnotist takes consummate care, the subject may still incorporate into his recollections some fantasies or cues from the hypnotist’s manner, or he may be rendered more susceptible to suggestions made before or after the hypnosis. A witness cannot identify his true memories after hypnosis. Nor can any expert separate them out. Worse, previously hypnotized witnesses often develop a certitude about their memories that ordinary witnesses seldom exhibit. Further harm is caused by ‘expert’ witnesses (often self-styled and police-oriented) who, testifying in the state’s behalf, make extravagant, scientifically unjustified claims about the reliability of hypnotically enhanced testimony. The plain fact is that such testimony is not and cannot be reliable. The only sensible approach is to exclude testimony from previously hypnotized witnesses as a matter of law, on the ground that the witness has been rendered incompetent to testify.” 68 Cal.L.Rev. 313, 348-349 (1980).
The two major professional associations in the field of hypnosis issued identical resolutions condemning the employment of hypnosis by untrained or minimally trained police officers:
“[This organization] views with alarm the tendency for police officers with minimal training in hypnosis and without a broad professional background in the healing arts employing hypnosis to presumably facilitate recall of witnesses or victims privy to the occurrence of some crime. Because we recognize that hypnotically aided recall may produce either accurate memories or at times may facilitate the creation of pseudo memories, or fantasies that are accepted as real by subject and hypnotist alike, we are deeply troubled by the utilization of this technique among the police. It must be emphasized that there is no known way of distinguishing with certainty between actual recall and pseudo memories except by independent verification * * *.
“For these and related reasons, [this organization] is strongly opposed to the training of police officers as hypnotechni-cians and the use of hypnosis by the police officer. In those instances when hypnosis is appropriately used in law enforcement, trained psychiatrists or psychologists with experience in the forensic use of hypnosis should be employed, care must be taken to control the amount of information wittingly and unwittingly provided to the subject, and all interactions with the subject before, during, and after hypnosis must be videotaped.” 9
II
The first reported case that I am aware of concerning the use of hypnosis for enhancement of a witness’ memory was Harding v. State, 5 Md.App. 230, 246 A.2d 302 (1968), cert, denied, 395 U.S. 949, 89 S.Ct. 2030, 23 L.Ed.2d 468 (1969). In that case a psychologist hypnotized the victim of the alleged crime to restore her memory. At trial the testimony of both the victim and the hypnotist was admitted in evidence and eventually upheld by the appellate court. This case spawned other cases cited in the majority opinion.
Harding and its progeny generally reason that testimony of a witness whose memory has been enhanced through hypnosis should be treated like other witnesses whose present recollection has been refreshed. Under this rationale it is assumed that skillful cross-examination will enable the jury to evaluate the effect of hypnosis on the witness and the credibility of his testimony. See State v. McQueen, 295 N.C. 96,120-121, 244 S.E.2d 414, 427-428 (1978); State v. Jorgenson, 8 Or.App. 1, 9, 492 P.2d 312, 315 (1971).
*1290Recent cases have been critical of basic assumptions in Harding and its progeny. In State v. Mena, 128 Ariz. 226, 624 P.2d 1274 (1980); and State v. Mack, Minn., 292 N.W.2d 764 (1980), the courts considered expert testimony and other evidence concerning the problems associated with using hypnosis as a means of reviving memory. The Arizona and Minnesota courts held that because hypnosis is essentially a scientific procedure it must satisfy the standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence established in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923); accord, Polk v. State, 48 Md.App. 382, 427 A.2d 1041, 1048 (Ct.Spec.App.1981); and People v. Tait, 99 Mich.App. 19, 297 N.W.2d 853, 857 (1980).
Applying the Frye test, both Arizona and Minnesota courts found that hypnosis has not gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs, at least as a means of obtaining accurate recall of prior events. Therefore, they held that the testimony of a witness who has undergone hypnosis to refresh his recollection is per se inadmissible in a criminal trial.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. Nazarovitch, Pa., 436 A.2d 170 (1981), held that any means by which evidence is scientifically adduced must satisfy the standard established in Frye v. United States, supra, at 172. The Pennsylvania court, however, held that at this time it did not want to establish a per se rule of inadmissibility, holding:
“ * * * We will not permit the introduction of hypnotically-refreshed testimony until we are presented with more conclusive proof than has been offered to date of the reliability of hypnotically-retrieved memory * * Commonwealth v. Na-zarovitch, supra, at 178.
I favor the approach of the Pennsylvania court rather than a per se rule that hypnotically enhanced recall is inadmissible, as was done by Arizona and Minnesota.
Ill
The standard for admitting scientific testimony most commonly employed by the courts is set out in Frye v. United States, supra, at 1014:
“Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”
In Frye, the court held that the results of a polygraph test were inadmissible because the defense had not established that the device was generally accepted in the scientific community as a reliable indicator of a person’s truthfulness.
The underlying rationale for requiring a standard is fear that the trier of fact, usually a jury, will accord uncritical and absolute reliability to a scientific device or phenono-men without considering its shortcomings. Jurors tend to give considerable weight to scientific evidence when presented by experts with impressive credentials. The aura of special reliability and trustworthiness surrounding scientific or expert testimony makes it particularly necessary that a careful foundation be laid for its admission.
Although setting out specific procedural safeguards would not be helpful in a dissent, legal literature suggests some general guidelines that might be helpful to police and prosecutors who want to assure that the hypnotic testimony is reliable and not risk a possible reversal when we eventually decide that our ruling here is an anomoly.
When hypnotically enhanced testimony is offered in evidence the trial judge should determine as a preliminary matter that:
1. Hypnosis, as a means of refreshing or enhancing recall, is generally accepted in the scientific community.
2. The hypnotist is qualified.
3. The use of hypnosis is appropriate for the kind of memory loss encountered in the case before the court.
*12914. Correct scientific procedures are employed in producing enhanced recall.
This four point preliminary determination is not unlike foundation necessary for the admission of any medical or scientifically related testimony.
The majority has alluded to a six point procedural requirement set out in State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 526, 432 A.2d 86 (1981).
One authority, Dr. Martin T. Orne, has suggested guidelines for “correct scientific procedure” in the context of forensic hypnosis: 10
“1. Hypnosis should be carried out by a psychiatrist or psychologist with special training in its use. He should not be informed about the facts of the case verbally; rather, he should receive a written memorandum outlining whatever facts he is to know, carefully avoiding any other communication which might affect his opinion. Thus, his beliefs and possible bias can be evaluated. It is extremely undesirable for the individual conducting the hypnotic sessions to have any involvement in investigation of the ease. Further, he should be an independent professional not responsible to the prosecution or the investigators.
“2. All contact of the psychiatrist or psychologist with the individual to be hypnotized should be videotaped from the moment they meet until the entire interaction is completed. The casual comments which are passed before or after hypnosis are every bit as important to get on tape as the hypnotic session itself. (It is possible to give suggestions prior to the induction of hypnosis which will act as posthypnotic suggestions.) . . .
“3. No one other than the psychiatrist or psychologist and the individual to be hypnotized should be present in the room before and during hypnotic session. This is important because it is all too easy for observers to inadvertently communicate to the subject what they expect, what
they are startled by, or what they are disappointed by.. .
“4. Because the interactions which have preceded the hypnotic session may well have a profound effect on the sessions themselves, tape recordings of prior interrogations are important to document that a witness had not been implicitly or explicitly cued pertaining to certain information which might then be reported for apparently the first time by the witness during hypnosis.”
The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice suggest the following guidelines for correct scientific procedure:
“1. That the hypnotist be a mental health person with special training in the use of hypnosis, preferably a psychiatrist or psychologist;
“2. That this person not be informed about the case verbally, but only in writing subject to scrutiny;
“3. That the hypnotist be independent and not responsible to the parties;
“4. That all contact between the hypnotist and the subject be video-taped from the beginning to the end;
“5. That nobody representing either party be present with the hypnotist and the subject during the session;
“6. That prior to the session hypnotist examine the subject to exclude the possibility of physical or mental illness and to establish sufficient intelligence, judgment, and comprehension of what is happening;
“7. That the hypnotist elicit all facts from the subject prior to the hypnosis; “8. That during the session, hypnotist strive to avoid adding any new elements to subject’s description, including any explicit or implicit cues, before, during, or after the session;
“9. That corroboration be sought for any information elicited during the session.” 11
*1292In cases cited by the majority permitting hypnotically enhanced testimony, and in other cases that I have read, the hypnotist had at least a modicum of expertise and employed some verification procedure. Here we have questionable expertise and a total lack of verification. I know of no case that has permitted the admission of hypnotically enhanced testimony with such a total lack of foundation.
In considering qualifications and procedural safeguards here, it is obvious that there was a total lack of compliance with any safeguards or procedures. The hypnotist in the case at bar was not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, but was interested in hypnosis as a hobby. Also, the hypnotist performing the hypnotic session was not independent of the parties involved, but was a police officer. There was also a failure to reduce to writing any information that had been given the hypnotist by the law enforcement people. Further, there is no record that the hypnotist obtained from the subject a description of the facts as the subject remembered them before the hypnosis session. The hypnosis session was not recorded. Apparently there were no backup procedures; that is, no stenographic notes were taken and no handwritten notes surfaced. Lastly, the session was not conducted with the hypnotist and the subject only; other people including police officers were present during the hypnosis session.
Police and prosecutors should not test the court again but should take immediate measures to insure that the hypnotist is qualified and that the patent deficiencies in the procedures here are not repeated. Poorly conceived law usually survives its maker. Its puny existence is sustained mainly by sentiment. I believe that this court will retreat from its holding here. This case should be placed in a museum as an object of interest, but of no value as a precedent.
The state failed to demonstrate that the use of hypnosis in this case was sufficiently reliable to allow Mr. Logan’s testimony to be admitted. I would, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial.

. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, p. 1114, (G. & C. Merriam Co., Publishers, 1966).

. Hypnosis:
“1. Hypnotic state: an artifically induced state resembling deep sleep, or a trancelike state in which the subject is highly susceptible to suggestion and responds readily to the commands of the hypnotist. 2. Somnus: natural sleep (rare).” Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, Third Unabridged, Lawyer’s Edition, p. 606 (1972).
Hypnotism:
“The act of inducing artificially a state of sleep or trance in a subject by means of verbal suggestion by the hypnotist or by the subject’s concentration upon some object. It is generally characterized by extreme responsiveness to suggestions from the hypnotist.” Black’s Dictionary, p. 668 (5th ed. (1979)).

. Lewis R. Wolberg, M.D., Hypnosis: Is It For You?, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York, p. 285 (1972):
“ * * * Hypnosis is a much misunderstood phenomenon. For centuries it has been affiliated with spiritualism, witchcraft, and various kinds of mumbo jumbo. It is a common tool of quacks, who have used it to ‘cure’ every imaginable illness, from baldness to cancer. The exaggerated claims made for it by undisciplined persons have turned some doctors against it. Some psychiatrists, too, doubt the value of hypnosis because Freud gave it up sixty years ago and they themselves have not had too much experience with its modern uses.”

. Bernstein. The Search For Bridey Murphy (1956), and Kline, ed., A Scientific Report on the “The Search for Bridey Murphy” (1956).

. Hilgard. Divided Consciousness: Multiple Controls in Human Thought and Action. New York: Wiley (1977), at p. 59.

. 12 Encyclopedia Britannica 24 (1964).

. “For example, in the Chowcilla kidnapping of 26 children who had been riding in a school bus, the bus driver was able to recall under hypnosis a license plate number. This proved instrumental in the apprehension of the kidnappers.” 68 Cal.L.Rev. 313, 332, n. 93 (1980).

. Bernard L. Diamond, M.D., doubts the value of hypnosis as an investigative tool:
“In my opinion, however, the value of hypnosis for investigative purposes has been greatly overstated by exaggerated claims in irresponsible books and articles. As Freud discovered long ago, whatever can be done by hypnosis can also be done without hypnosis; it merely takes longer and requires greater skill and patience. My own experience convinces me that safe and effective enhancement of recall, with less hazard of suggestion and contamination of future testimony, can be accomplished without gimmicks such as hypnosis and ‘truth serum.’ ” 68 Cal.L.Rev. 313,332, n. 93(1980).

. Resolution passed in October 1978 by the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis and in August 1979 by the International Society of Hypnosis, as reported in 27 Int. Jour. Clin & Exp. Hypnosis 452, 453 (1979).

. Orne, “The Use and Misuse of Hypnosis in Court,” pp. 311, 338-339. These guidelines are also cited in State v. Mack, Minn., 292 N.W.2d 764, n. 14, p. 771 (1980). Dr. Orne is co-author of the article on hynosis in 9 Encyclopedia Britannica Macropedia 133 (15th ed. 1979).

. These guidelines, first set forth in Wisconsin *1292v. White, No. J-3665, March 27, 1979, are reprinted in 17th Annual Defending Criminal Cases, “A Practical Look at Current Deveiop-ments in Criminal Law,” Ephraim Margolin, ed., Vol. 2, at 987-988 (Practicing Law Institute, 1979).