attitude, demeanor, and expectations of hypnotist, tone of voice, body language can communicate suggestive messages
How later courts described this case
- attitude, demeanor, and expectations of hypnotist, tone of voice, body language can communicate suggestive messages
- requiring exclusion of uncorroborated identifications made only after hypnosis on due process, fair trial, and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 grounds
- probative value of the post-hypnotic identification substantially outweighed by prejudice caused by identification
- post-hypnotic testimony may be admissible in some cases where procedural safeguards are followed, but not where hypnotized subject identifies a person for the first time whom he has reason to know is a suspect
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I fully concur in the well researched and reasoned analysis of Parts II, III, and IV of the opinion. I respectfully dissent, however, from the conclusion of Part V, holding that the admission of the hypnotically enhanced testimony affected a substantial right of the defendant.
Because there was overwhelming independent evidence against Valdez and because the hypnotically enhanced identification testimony was insignificant when compared to the other evidence of guilt, I would hold that the admissibility of this testimony did not affect a substantial right of the defendant; indeed, I would hold that the testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The evidence clearly showed that Valdez had the necessary motive to commit the crime with which he was charged, that is, hostility toward his employer for criticism of his work and denial of a pay increase. Valdez admitted to being at the first drop site. He was also at the second drop site. His palm print was found on the first extortion note. His palm print was found on the second extortion note. There were more than 204 similarities between the handwriting on the two extortion notes and Valdez’s handwriting exemplars. Additionally, without being shown the extortion notes by the investigating officers, Valdez apparently knew the kind of papér the notes had been written on. Surely the majority should be able to recognize that these links in the chain of evidence cannot be explained as mere coincidence; indeed, to any reasonable minded jury such evidence, unexplained as it was here, would be conclusive proof of culpability.
*1206 When compared with this overwhelming weight of evidence of guilt, the hypnotically enhanced testimony is of no significance or importance. The only hypnotically enhanced evidence was the identity of Valdez at the first drop site, where he later admitted he was. The elimination of this testimony that Valdez acted suspiciously at the first drop site does not add any strength to a claim of innocence, or, in different words, does not. create a basis for a reasonable doubt of guilt. In short, it was harmless.
I would therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.