Giannelli P C
Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, OH 44106-7148, USA.
Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 1995 Apr;43(2):212-33. doi: 10.1080/00207149508409962.
For the past two decades, the American judiciary has confronted the admissibility of hypnotic evidence in criminal prosecutions. These courts have uniformly rejected the admissibility of out-of-court statements made while an individual is in hypnosis. In contrast, the courts divided sharply over the admissibility of hypnotically refreshed testimony. Some courts adopted a per se rule of exclusion; these courts, however, also carved out exceptions for testimony based on prehypnotic memory and testimony of the accused. Courts admitting hypnotically refreshed testimony adopted three different positions: (a) a "credibility" approach, which left the reliability issue to the jury; (b) a "discretionary admission" approach, which left the reliability issue to the trial judge; and (c) a "procedural safeguards" approach. In addition, constitutional concerns played an influential role in some of these cases. This diversity in the case law often resulted from a judicial failure to understand the scientific research on hypnosis. Courts have also considered the use of hypnosis as a basis for expert testimony about an accused's mental state. Unless the advantages of hypnotically refreshed testimony are significant, why add more problems?
在过去二十年里，美国司法系统一直面临着刑事诉讼中催眠证据的可采性问题。这些法院一致拒绝采纳个人在催眠状态下作出的庭外陈述的可采性。相比之下，法院在催眠后恢复的证词的可采性问题上存在严重分歧。一些法院采用了绝对排除规则；然而，这些法院也为基于催眠前记忆的证词和被告人的证词划出了例外情况。承认催眠后恢复证词的法院采取了三种不同立场：(a) “可信度”方法，将可靠性问题留给陪审团；(b) “自由裁量采纳”方法，将可靠性问题留给初审法官；(c) “程序保障”方法。此外，宪法问题在其中一些案件中发挥了重要作用。判例法中的这种多样性往往是由于司法机构未能理解关于催眠的科学研究。法院还考虑将催眠用作专家就被告人精神状态提供证词的依据。除非催眠后恢复的证词的优势显著，否则何必增添更多问题呢？
