Opinion

Burral v. State

  • 352 Md. 707
  • 724 A.2d 65
Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Filed
Feb 12, 1999
Status
Published
Author
Eldridge
On the bench
Bell, Eldridge, Rodowsky, Chasanow, Raker, Wilner, Karwacki
Cited by
12 cases
Authority
More cited than 8.6%

"hypnosis as memory enhancer has [not] gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community"

How later courts described this case

  • "hypnosis as memory enhancer has [not] gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community"
  • distinguishing federal and Maryland standards
  • "We have not abandoned Frye or Reed."

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

ELDRIDGE, Judge,

dissenting.

I would reserve and remand for a new trial for the reasons set forth in that portion of Judge Chasanow’s opinion dealing with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.