Constitutional rights and hypnotically elicited testimony
Language: 
English
Abstract: 

Despite the former popularity of hypnosis as a way of "improving" eyewitness memory, many courts almost always regard the use of this testimony to be inadmissible, whereas others allow it only when strict procedural guidelines have been followed. Although the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a defendant's constitutional right to admit his own hypnotically elicited testimony, others have recognized a constitutional basis to exclude hypnotically elicited testimony in most other circumstances.

Author(s): 
Newman, A. W.
Thompson, J. W.
Item Type: 
Journal Article
Publication Title: 
The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
Journal Abbreviation: 
J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law
Publication Date: 
1999
Publication Year: 
1999
Pages: 
149-154
Volume: 
27
Issue: 
1
ISSN: 
1093-6793
Library Catalog: 
PubMed
Extra: 
PMID: 10212035

Turabian/Chicago Citation

A. W. Newman and J. W. Thompson. 1999. "Constitutional rights and hypnotically elicited testimony." The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 27: 1: 149-154.

Wikipedia Citation

<ref> {{Cite journal | doi = | issn = 1093-6793 | volume = 27 | pages = 149-154 | last = Newman | first = A. W. | coauthors = Thompson, J. W. | title = Constitutional rights and hypnotically elicited testimony | journal = The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law | date = 1999 | pmid = | pmc = }} </ref>