User:Tnguyen2/sandbox

Forensic hypnosis is hypnosis but in a law enforcement aspect. The forensic aspect of hypnosis is used to help witness recall events or suspects. One of the cases that help spark interest was about two brothers and a friend who decided to hijack a school and demand a $5 million dollar ransom from the California government. They had kidnapped 26 children and the bus driver who were on their way back from a field trip. The kidnappers hid the bus and drove all the way to a quarry in Livermore, California, and gave them a small amount of food,water, and mattresses. The hostages were able to find a way to escape after 16 hours in the truck. The police used hypnosis on the bus driver, and he was able to remember the license number of the van used in the kidnapping resulting in the arrest of the men. This case sparked interest in forensic hypnosis.

The judges tried to see hypnosis testimony was admissible in court under the Frye test. The Frye test is the set of standards which control the admissibility  of results of scientific tests. This was developed in the Frye v. United States court case. Unlike other scientific test hypnosis results are not based on an expert’s interpretation, however, it is scientific so the courts decided that hypnosis falls under the Frye test. However, New Jersey courts adopted a different set of standards because the court said hypnosis will be inadmissible due to its scientific inaccuracy. The new standard was:

1. Witnesses have to have a trained and experienced psychiatrist or psychologist in the area of hypnosis to perform the hypnosis.

2. The hypnotist can’t be frequently employed by the police, prosecution, or defense.

3. Information given to the hypnotist should be written or recorded and be available to view for everyone.

4. The hypnosis sessions should be videotaped or audiotaped including all interviews conducted.

5. Only the witness and hypnotist can be present in all of the sessions.

6. The witness’ or subject’s memories before hypnosis should be recorded and preserved.

Since then in many cases the prosecutor and the defense had tried to use hypnotic testimony as evidence in court. For example, in the court case of People v. Hangsleben, a teenage boy was convicted of murdering two girls on a confession made to the police. The court had denied the defense’s request to admit a recorded hypnosis testimony as evidence where the boy had admitted to other murders in the session. The appellate court also decided that the session recording was inadmissible for unreliable hypnotic recall, dangers of misusing hypnosis, and misinterpretation by the jury. Another example would be United States v. Adams. In the court case, the witness’s posthypnotic statements were severely different from the statements were hypnosis that the prosecutor had him impeached on discrepancy. The court suggested a stenographic record of the hypnosis session to minimize the opportunity for suggestion during sessions. Not a lot of court cases who used post-hypnotic testimonies were successful because hypnosis is deemed uncredible.