HARDING

v.

MARYLAND

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

• Bundy v. State, 471 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1985)
  …isions is warranted. In early 1981, the Arizona Supreme Court handed down its decision in State v. Mena, 128 Ariz. 226, 624 P. 2d 1274 (1981). The court addressed the rationale of Harding v. State, 5 Md.App. 230, 246 A. 2d 302 (1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 949, 89 S.Ct. 2030, 23 L.Ed.2d 468 (1969), which was the earliest case deciding the issue of admissibility of testimony offered by witnesses who have undergone hypnosis in an attempt to increase their memories concerning events about which they may test…
• Stokes v. State, 548 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1989)
  …s skeptical view was predominant well into the twentieth century, in 1968, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals allowed the use of hypnosis for evidentiary purposes. Harding v. State, 5 Md.App. 230, 246 A. 2d 302 (Ct. Spec. App.1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 949, 89 S.Ct. 2030, 23 L.Ed.2d 468 (1969), overruled, Collins v. State, 52 Md.App. 186, 447 A. 2d 1272 (Ct. Spec. App.1982). Since then, hypnosis has taken a rollercoaster ride through the courts, finding favor in some states, uncertainty in others, and…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Brown v. State, 426 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
  …also State v. Beachum, 97 N.M. 682, 643 P. 2d 246, 252 (Ct.App.1981). The appellant perceptively notes that the underpinnings of Clark were furnished by Harding v. State, 5 Md.App. 230, 246 A. 2d 302 (1968), cert. denied, 252 Md. 731, cert. denied, 395 U.S. 949, 89 S.Ct. 2030, 23 L.Ed.2d 468 (1969), in which the Maryland Court of Appeals explained at length that hypnosis was reliable and admissible. Because the Maryland court has since receded from Harding and now bars admission of hypnotically-induced-rec…