holding witness who has been hypnotized may testify only to facts demonstrably recalled prior to hypnosis and only where certain prerequisites have been met
How later courts described this case
- holding witness who has been hypnotized may testify only to facts demonstrably recalled prior to hypnosis and only where certain prerequisites have been met
- Once Frye is satisfied, scientific evidence is admissible “subject to a foundational showing that the expert was qualified, the technique was properly used, and the results were accurately recorded.”
- witness may testify with regard to those matters he was able to "recall and relate" prior to hypnosis, as long as the hypnotic procedure itself is designed to minimize the danger of contamination
- testimony on prehypnotic recollections admissible provided that the extent of such recollections is recorded prior to hypnosis
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HAYS, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I most heartily concur with that portion of the opinion which permits a previously hypnotized witness to testify as to pre-hypnotic recall.
However, I must dissent from the balance of the opinion which, after careful and exhaustive review of the subject, holds that hypnotically induced testimony may not be introduced in evidence. It is not necessary to adopt a per se inadmissible rule. Certainly, the ingenuity of our system can find safeguards which protect against the introduction of palpably unreliable testimony. Illustrative of this, we refer to the standards adopted in State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 525 , 432 A.2d 86 (1981), with an additional requirement that only hypnotically induced testimony which is corroborated by other independent evidence may be introduced. To totally slam the door on all hypnotically induced testimony, whether corroborated or not, I find to be unnecessary. On this issue I dissent.