Forensic hypnosis

Last updated

Forensic hypnosis is the use of hypnosis in the investigative process and as evidence in court which became increasingly popular from the 1950s to the early 1980s with its use being debated into the 1990s when its popular use mostly diminished. [1] Forensic hypnosis's uses are hindered by concerns with its reliability and accuracy. The United States Department of Justice states that hypnosis may be occasionally used in investigation, but that the method faces "serious objections" and that information from hypnosis may be considered inadmissible. [2] Forensic hypnosis has been considered for several uses including: hypnotic memory enhancement, evaluating a defendant's mental state, determining if a subject is telling the truth, preparing a witness for trial, determining if one is feigning trauma or a mental injury, and supporting the defense in a criminal case. [3] Some of these uses have found more support than others as academic psychologists have reviewed these. While psychologists may find it appropriate to use memory enhancement to help in finding leads in the investigation process which should lead to uncovering more concrete evidence, its use in determining if a subject is telling the truth has been widely criticized. [3]

Contents

Forensic Hypnosis's historical use was catalyzed by analogies made between emerging recording technologies and forensic hypnosis techniques such as hypnotic age regression, a technique that supposedly reveals a hypnotized person's experiences and feelings at a certain point in the past. While this comparison was popular with the public, it caused concern for academic psychologists who went on to research hypnosis and attempt to determine its appropriate uses in law enforcement and whether the mind was analogous to a recording device. [1]

History

Period of inadmissibility

Attempts to admit forensic hypnosis in court were made before World War I and hypnotherapy gained popularity from its uses in treating soldier's trauma in World War II; however, it would not be admitted as evidence until the second half of the 20th century. [1] One of the most referenced rules in determining the admissibility of forensic hypnosis as evidence is the Frye Standard (1923). Frye set the precedent that scientific methods and theories must gain general acceptance to be considered admissible as evidence in court and concerned the use of systolic blood pressure for lie detection, another type of forensic evidence. [3] Prior to State v. Harding in 1968, courts looked at hypnotic testimonies skeptically and often declared that its use had not gained general acceptance, citing the Frye Standard. An example of this stance can be seen in State v. Pusch (1951). August Pusch was accused of poisoning his wife and charged with first-degree murder. A doctor trained in hypnosis who claimed that he could tell when one of his patients was lying, hypnotized Pusch. The recordings and doctor's testimony were both deemed inadmissible under the Frye Standard. The court compared forensic hypnosis to the polygraph test stating that they could both be used in criminal investigation but were not admissible in court. [4]

An additional issue with the admission of forensic hypnosis is that when admitted it would have the status of a witness testimony which the jury would be asked to evaluate. This poses a risk since practitioners and lay supporters of forensic hypnosis claim forensic testimonies to be the unmediated record of events making it difficult for juries to properly evaluate testimonies and leading judges to declare forensic hypnosis inadmissible. [1] This highlights another similarity of forensic hypnosis to the polygraph test as it is difficult for the jury to evaluate the truth value of such evidence. William J. Brian, a psychiatrist who used hypnosis in WW II and an early supporter of forensic hypnosis, offered to evaluate the state of mind of Henry Adolf Busch, an accused serial killer in 1957. Bryan portrayed hypnosis and memory like a recording device in an analogous way to the popular novel The Manchurian Candidate by Richard Condon and claimed that through using hypnosis he discovered that Busch had not been mentally in control of his actions. The jury was not convinced by his argument, but Bryan's push for the use of forensic hypnosis and appeal to popular culture brought forensic hypnosis one step closer to admissibility. [1]

Admissibility and challenges

The general rule of inadmissibility which courts followed came to an end with State v. Harding (1968). In this case, Mildred Coley, who was raped and left wounded on the side of a road could not recall the events of the attack, but she was able to rehearse a detailed account of the events and identify her witness after a psychiatrist put her into a state of hypnosis. Declaring that forensic hypnosis satisfied the Frye Standard by gaining acceptance in the appropriate psychological fields and practices, the court called Coley as a witness to repeat what hypnosis allowed her to recall under the condition that the jurors give less weight to her hypnotic testimony. However, this was a landmark case for forensic hypnosis and the possibility that forensic hypnosis could be admitted as evidence in future cases led to a great expansion of the public's interest in forensic hypnosis and the method's use, especially in pre-trial work. An example of the method's expanding use is shown in the founding of hypnosis training institutes such as Martin Reiser's Law Enforcement Hypnosis Institution in Los Angeles which trained thousands of police in the 1970s. With the expanded use of forensic hypnosis came claims about the technique's truth-telling capabilities, particularly in popular scientific journals which influenced how the public viewed its dependability. [1]

As a movement developed around support for forensic hypnosis, academic psychologists who were skeptical about the legitimacy of hypnosis's use in court increasingly challenged the admissibility of hypnotic testimonies. Academic psychologist's interest in challenging some of the popular beliefs surrounding hypnosis and memory led to a general increase in psychological experimentation and new procedures for analysis of these experiments. Psychologists studied how hypnosis makes people more susceptible to suggestion to determine if this suggestibility created a risk for the practitioner to influence what they are, perhaps unintentionally, looking for in the subject. Among the psychologists looking to challenge forensic hypnosis's use in the late 1970s was Martin Theodore Orne. Orne concluded in 1979 that while memory could be improved through hypnosis, using the tool also risked the hypnotist introducing outside information and distorting the memory. While popular culture and scientific journals began to hail forensic hypnosis as a method for recovering faultless memories which were stored inside of our minds, psychologists developed counterclaims and a different perspective on how memory and the mind worked under hypnosis. [1]

Forensic Hypnosis faced a series of serious legal challenges in the 1980s with People v. Shirley (1982) standing out as a case which directly attacked the method's reliability. People v. Shirley was a California rape case where the supposed victim Catherine Crump went to the police while intoxicated and vaguely reported a rape. Mr. Farnell, a hypnotist without a formal psychology background, assisted her in retrieving a detailed story from her memory in which she woke in her apartment to find the defendant yielding a large knife and forcing her to have sex with him. However, there were multiple inconsistencies in the story she produced through hypnosis and what she had previously reported leading the court to declare her testimony inadmissible. The court declared witnesses could not testify if they had used forensic hypnosis as it could alter existing memories in unpredictable ways. However, while this may have been a success for the scientific opposition to the use of forensic hypnosis as evidence, this case would not mark the end of forensic hypnosis's use. [1] In Rock v. Arkansas (1987), Mrs. Rock had been in a fight with her husband when the gun in her hand fired, killing her husband. While she could not initially remember the details of the incident, through hypnosis she claimed to remember that the gun misfired when her husband grabbed her arm. The lower court and Arkansas supreme court corroborated the decision in People v. Shirley regarding hypnotic testimonies; however, the Supreme Court overturned these decisions declaring that a total ban on hypnotic testimonies was unconstitutional and in violation of Mrs. Rock's right to due process (14th amendment) and right to call a witness (6th amendment). [4]

The memory wars

The United States saw another major increase in the use of forensic hypnosis and its use in courts during the memory wars which took place in the 1980s and 1990s. Young adults in the 1980s, often ones who had used hypnotic therapy services, suddenly began recalling memories of childhood sexual abuse, satanic ritual abuse, and even alien abductions. The spike in appearance of these, often false, memories has been attributed to the popular culture and practitioner supported belief that hypnosis could reveal traumatic memories buried within one's mind. A network of therapists and support groups developed around this trend in the late 1980s. One of the greatest contributors to this trend was that the job of therapists is to comfort their patients and encourage them to confront their abuser; however, this does not allow for the rigorous fact-checking of evidence which courts require. [1] An example of these cases can be seen in Borawick v. Shay (1995) where Borawick accused her aunt of multiple instances of childhood sexual assault after recalling the incident months after undergoing hypnotic age regression. The hypnotist, practicing in California, was not licensed as a psychologist and did not have a medical degree. The court determined that the hypnotic testimony was not admissible as there was no corroborative evidence to support Borawick's memories. [4] The rejection of Borawick's testimony may be a consequence of the creation of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) by Peter J. Freyd to support parents, like himself, who were accused of childhood abuse based on returning memories.

The FMSF created a scientific board which was looking to disprove the legitimacy of claims made from hypnotically recovered memories. Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist and expert on memory, was invited by Orne to join the board to work together on researching false memory. Loftus had previously done experiments which led her to conclude that the fundamental understanding of memory by the supporters of forensic hypnosis as a type of recording device was incorrect. In one experiment she showed subjects films of a traffic accident and later questioned them on what had occurred. When subjects repeated the events there were often errors, and suggestive questioning, as used in hypnosis, often led people to change how they remembered the events. Loftus and other experts testified to the unreliability of memory; however, this created a conflict with the traditional way in which the jury evaluates the credibility of a testimony as the expert is completely discrediting the witness's statement on a scientific basis that the jury does not understand. Nevertheless, this board continued to fight back against false memory throughout the memory wars, and while not unconstitutional, the use of forensic hypnosis has fallen out of heavy use since the 1990s. [1]

Uses of hypnosis

Pretrial work

There are several issues which arise when a witness undergoes hypnosis before a trial and then potentially uses information from that hypnotic session in their testimony. Subjects are more susceptible to changing how they remember events during hypnosis and from suggestive questioning, nonverbal cuing, and mixing reality with fantasy. Truth seeking methods such as cross examination tends to be less effective after a witness has undergone hypnosis which may lead to them acquiring false beliefs or false confidence in their memories. Similarly, subjects of hypnosis may gain self-assurance while in the relaxed state of hypnosis which may make it easier for them to lie, reshaping their future testimony. [3] Ultimately, the use of hypnosis in pretrial work faces issues with how the accuracy of the future trial may be impacted and is thus discouraged today.

Criminal investigation

One of the least controversial uses for hypnosis is as a tool to find independent evidence to assist in an investigation. In order for this use of forensic hypnosis to not face the same challenges as hypnotic testimonies, there needs to be certainty that the subject being hypnotized will not need to later testify as a witness. Additionally, everything that the subject says while in a hypnotic trance must be verified or disproved with independent evidence and must not be conceived as factual. This is the case because it is easy for a subject to lie or make mistakes about their memory of an event while in a hypnotic trance. Investigative hypnosis has been proven useful to some police departments including the Los Angeles Police Department which reported in 1980 that in 70 cases where forensic hypnosis was used, it helped the police find important information in 54 of the cases. While this process is known to produce inaccuracies, it has also been shown to help police find leads to other evidence which warrants the cost of verifying or disproving information. [3] This is the only use of forensic hypnosis which the US Department of Justice advises using, and still only in limited cases. [2]

Evaluating state of mind

Another less controversial use for hypnosis is in evaluating an individual's state of mind. The American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association both consider using forensic hypnosis to assist in determining a subject's sanity or criminal intent to be legitimate. This may be used by the defendant to argue that insanity was what led the defendant to commit the crime and not their criminal intent as they could not control their own actions. [3]

Related Research Articles

An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise. Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.

Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forensic psychology</span> Using psychological science to help answer legal questions

Forensic psychology is the practice of psychology applied to the law. Forensic psychology is the application of scientific knowledge and methods to help answer legal questions arising in criminal, civil, contractual, or other judicial proceedings. Forensic psychology includes research on various psychology-law topics, such as jury selection, reducing systemic racism in criminal law, eyewitness testimony, evaluating competency to stand trial, or assessing military veterans for service-connected disability compensation. The American Psychological Association's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists reference several psychology subdisciplines, such as social, clinical, experimental, counseling, and neuropsychology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal psychology</span> Psychological research of the law

Together, legal psychology and forensic psychology form the field more generally recognized as "psychology and law". Following earlier efforts by psychologists to address legal issues, psychology and law became a field of study in the 1960s as part of an effort to enhance justice, though that originating concern has lessened over time. The multidisciplinary American Psychological Association's Division 41, the American Psychology-Law Society, is active with the goal of promoting the contributions of psychology to the understanding of law and legal systems through research, as well as providing education to psychologists in legal issues and providing education to legal personnel on psychological issues. Further, its mandate is to inform the psychological and legal communities and the public at large of current research, educational, and service in the area of psychology and law. There are similar societies in Britain and Europe.

In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts. In Daubert, the Court held that the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence implicitly overturned the Frye standard; the standard that the Court articulated is referred to as the Daubert standard.

First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.

Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, though some countries proscribe the prosecution from exploiting evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible. This rule of evidence is called the exclusionary rule. In the United States, this was effectuated federally in 1914 under the Supreme Court case Weeks v. United States and incorporated against the states in 1961 in the case Mapp v. Ohio. Both of these cases involved law enforcement conducting warrantless searches of the petitioners' homes, with incriminating evidence being described inside them.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts.

In the law of criminal evidence, a confession is a statement by a suspect in crime which is adverse to that person. Some secondary authorities, such as Black's Law Dictionary, define a confession in more narrow terms, e.g. as "a statement admitting or acknowledging all facts necessary for conviction of a crime," which would be distinct from a mere admission of certain facts that, if true, would still not, by themselves, satisfy all the elements of the offense. The equivalent in civil cases is a statement against interest.

Wee Care Nursery School, located in Maplewood, New Jersey, was the subject of a day care child abuse case that was tried during the 1980s. Although Margaret Kelly Michaels was prosecuted and convicted, the decision was reversed after she spent five years in prison. An appellate court ruled that several features of the original trial had produced an unjust ruling and the conviction was reversed. The case was studied by several psychologists who were concerned about the interrogation methods used and the quality of the children's testimony in the case. This resulted in research concerning the topic of children's memory and suggestibility, resulting in new recommendations for performing interviews with child victims and witnesses.

The hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005.

In United States law, the Frye standard, Frye test, or general acceptance test is a judicial test used in U.S. courts to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only when the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence superseded Frye as the standard for admissibility of expert evidence in federal courts. Some states, however, still adhere to the Frye standard.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Martin Theodore Orne</span> American physician

Martin Theodore Orne was a professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. Orne is best known for his pioneering research into demand characteristics, illustrating the weakness of informing participants that they are taking part in a psychology experiment and yet expecting them to act normally. He was well known as a researcher in the field of hypnosis and is also noted for his involvement with the poet Anne Sexton, and with the trials of Patty Hearst and Kenneth Bianchi.

In eyewitness identification, in criminal law, evidence is received from a witness "who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court".

Forensic entomology deals with the collection of arthropodic evidence and its application, and through a series of tests and previously set of rules, general admissibility of said evidence is determined. Forensic entomology may come into play in a variety of legal cases, including crime scene investigation, abuse and neglect cases, accidents, insect infestation, and food contamination.

Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander or victim gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation. Ideally this recollection of events is detailed; however, this is not always the case. This recollection is used as evidence to show what happened from a witness' point of view. Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions can be unreliable, manipulated, and biased. As a result of this, many countries, and states within the United States, are now attempting to make changes in how eyewitness testimony is presented in court. Eyewitness testimony is a specialized focus within cognitive psychology.

The role of expert witnesses in English law is to give explanations of difficult or technical topics in civil and criminal trials, to assist the fact finding process. The extent to which authorities have been allowed to testify, and on what topics, has been debated, and to this end a variety of criteria have evolved throughout English case law.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Winter, Alison (2013-03-01). "The rise and fall of forensic hypnosis". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. Special Issue: Forensic Cultures. 44 (1): 26–35. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2012.09.011. ISSN   1369-8486. PMID   23142619.
  2. 1 2 "287. Use of Hypnosis—Purpose". www.justice.gov. 2015-02-19. Retrieved 2020-11-25.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Udolf, Roy (1983). Forensic Hypnosis: Psychological and Legal Aspects. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books. ISBN   0669054186.
  4. 1 2 3 Paterline, Brent A. (December 2016). "Forensic Hypnosis and the Courts" (PDF). Journal of Law and Criminal Justice. 4 (2). doi:10.15640/jlcj.v4n2a1.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.