Forensic Hypnosis is hypnosis used in legal cases, usually for refreshing memory when uncovering clues or the like. Every once in awhile, it gets discussed here or on the groups. Recently, a post was made on a number of groups asking for advice in that the husband of a hypnotherapist’s acquaintance was witness to "potential homicide" in which a woman was possibly crashed into on the highway and then died. This has sparked some discussion.
The questioner immediately received some excellent suggestions of caution as well as how one might procedd. Because forensic hypnosis becomes part of tha chain of evidence, it is very very important that everything be above board and the hypnotist has used clean language (language that does not imply suggestions) and that everything is documented. Sure, we should never lead but only guide in all of our sessions but in forensic hypnosis this is placed under a magnifying glass of scrutiny and the implications go into a person’s life and justice as well as the livelihood of other hypnotists in a State or more because of the domino effect.
Recently, forensic hypnosis has been taking a hit in the legal system so courts are placing results under even more scrutiny. See two very recent stories:
- Forensic Hypnosis takes a sucker punch: New Jersey testimony induced by hypnosis rejected . . . because of a single case gone wrong and lack of confidence in others, New Jersey now disallows hypnotically refreshed testimony except for a defendant.
- more on improper procedures: forensic hypnosis gone awry . . . a fellow was sent to prison for close to twenty years for a crime he didn’t commit (DNA evidence cleared him) and it was found that the prosecution used hypnosis with a witness and the procedures were sloppy.
When possible have the hypnosis done by someone who routinely works within the legal system.
It is best to work with an experienced practitioner who has had forensic hypnosis training who has worked within the system in the past. Make certain everything is documented and the process is entered into the chain of evidence and not just the testimony.
Other good pieces of advice given include having the appropriate case officers present, videotape the entire session (with full bodies of both hypnotist and hypnotee visible as well as an analog clock, and to never ever lead.
That is very very clear. In the followup, the prosecution and the defence will call upon the hypnotist. You have to have your head on straight and speak only to the process without drawing conclusions that might seem leading.
For instance, in the oroginal query the hypnotist expressed the case about the fellow as being a "witness to a potential homicide (they think this lady was crashed into on the freeway that died)" which could be construed as leading. She’s not discussing it with the fellow or doing hypnosis so no big sin, however, if it were expressed that way with the client, especially in hypnosis, then it might imply what the correct answer should be. Guiding versus leading can be a tricky business, especially when dealing with matters of life and death. The use of the term homicide implies murder rather than accidental hit-and-run or the like so the stakes are quite high.
The defence in a hypnosis case will need to call in "expert witnesses" to examine the process (so the videotape is a must). I believe folks who are respected forensic hypnotists have served in that capacity but sometimes they’ll call someone to discredit hypnosis (not a strong strategy but all they need is a reasonable doubt and that can be easy to get when the emotional card is played).
Some folks offer the caveat that hypnotically refreshed memories are often no longer admissible in court so one should be wary of contaminating the evidence. This depends upon the jurisdiction and the circumstances. New Jersey allows it for very specific circumstances but disallows even the practice, let alone the testimony, in others. Some places are okay with it as long as it is above board and there is full disclosure and record keeping. For instance, prosecution must inform the defence when it is used. In some places it is not allowed at all. Hypnotically refreshed memory is strongest if it leads to other concrete evidence that is not dependant upon the hypnosis session. In many places, new evidence from a witness independant of but after hypnosis judged very differently and can be dismissed so tread softly.
For this case, I would strongly suggest that the case officers steer clear of folks who claim to do forensic hypnosis in circumstances where they suggest they can force truthful testimony from a resistant suspect. There’s a whole kettle of fish there that you may not want to swim in when it comes to process as well as testimony analysis. Since the witness is willing, invasive processes would not be called for so one might wish to go with those with reputations of more traditional merit. Keep processes and contexts aboveboard and clean of the slightest hint of inappropriate suggestion or behavior.
This is, of course, all in my opinion.
All the best,
Brian
STAGE, PERFORMANCE, ENTERTAINMENT HYPNOSIS – Sept. 4-8, 2006
Brian David Phillips, PhD, CH [phillips@nccu.edu.tw]Certified Hypnotherapist
President, Society of Experiential Trance
Associate Professor, NCCU, Taipei, Taiwan
http://www.BrianDavidPhillips.com
