title: Constitutional rights and hypnotically elicited testimony.
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.
authors.affiliation: Forensic Studies, Arkansas Mental Health Research and Training Institute, Little Rock, USA. alan.newman@mail.state.ar.us
authors.forename: A W
authors.initials: AW
authors.lastname: Newman
authors.forename: J W
authors.initials: JW
authors.lastname: Thompson
mesh_terms: D002961:Civil Rights; D006801:Humans; D006990:Hypnosis; D007603:Jurisprudence; D014481:United States