Showing results 1-1 of 1.
Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Thus, either upon objection to introduction into evidence of hypnotically-induced-recall-testimony, 91*91 or upon its proffer, it is the burden of the party seeking to present such evidence to demonstrate that the hypnosis session and use of that evidence will not cause undue prejudice or mislead the jury."
The other camp, represented by Drs. Rossi and Reiser, the state's expert witnesses in Contreras, denies the existence of a special trance state and explains hypnotic behavior as simply a function of the subject's rapport with the hypnotist, as well as his set of attitudes, reservations and expectations regarding hypnosis. ... We believe however that the case-by-case approach is time consuming, creates a risk of non-uniform results 138*138 and requires judges to become hypnosis experts in order to make intelligent determinations about the efficacy of particular procedural safeguards and about whether there is in fact substantial compliance with those safeguards.