Rethinking per se exclusions of hypnotically elicited recall as legal testimony.

In 1993, Boggs argued for a rethinking of the per se exclusion of hypnotically elicited testimony. This article analyzes the Minnesota v. Mack (1980) case that initiated this exclusion and the two Illinois cases Boggs cites in favor of her position. The scientific data on the effect of hypnosis on memory do not support Boggs's position. Rather than providing reasons for rethinking this per se position, these data suggest that it should be retained.