HENRY

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1984)
  …e scientifically recognized dangers of unreliability of such testimony outweigh its probative value as a matter of law, or for a combination of such reasons. See, e.g., People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18, 641 P. 2d 775, 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860, 103 S.Ct. 133, 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982); People v. Gonzales, 415 Mich. 615, 329 N.W. 2d 743 (1982); State v. Mack, 292 N.W. 2d 764 (Minn.1980). The courts of other jurisdictions have held that hypnotically aided testimony is admissible, but only if c…
• Stokes v. State, 548 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1989)
  …ese states decided that hypnotically refreshed testimony was, by its nature, too unreliable for use in the courtroom. By the time the California Supreme Court decided People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18, 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 723 P. 2d 1354, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860, 103 S.Ct. 133, 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982), scientific opinion on the use of hypnotically refreshed memory in court had changed dramatically. Although the courts in some states had already reached the conclusion that hypnotically refreshed testimony was…
• Morgan v. State, 537 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1989)
  …many states which have adopted the exclusionary rule did so only as to witnesses and not for a defendant’s testimony. The Court cited the California rule contained in People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18, 723 P. 2d 1354, 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860, 103 S.Ct. 133, 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982), where that court barred the entire testimony of any witness who had been hypnotized but explicitly accepted a defendant’s testimony by stating: [W]hen it is the defendant himself—not merely a defense witness—w…