State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 31 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a]n attack on credibility is the proper method to determine the value of the testimony of a previously hypnotized witness,”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Zani v. State · Vester v. State

2. “(1) The hypnotic session should be conducted by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist trained in the use of hypnosis. "(2) The qualified professional conducting the hypnotic session should be independent of and not responsible to the prosecutor, investigator or the defense. "(3) Any information given to the hypnotist by law enforcement personnel prior to the hypnotic session must be in written form so that subsequently the extent of the information the subject received from the hypnotist may be determined. "(4) Before induction of hypnosis, the hypnotist should obtain from the subject a detailed description of the facts as the subject remembers them, carefully avoiding adding any new elements to the witness' description of the events. "(5) All contacts between the hypnotist and the subject should be recorded so that a permanent record is available for comparison and study to establish that the witness has not received information or suggestion which might later be reported as having been first described by the subject during hypnosis. Videotape should be employed if possible, but should not be mandatory. "(6) Only the hypnotist and the subject should be present during any phase of the hypnotic session, including the pre-hypnotic testing and post-hypnotic interview.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Iwakiri

3. “First, a psychiatrist or psychologist experienced in the use of hypnosis must conduct the session .... “Second, the professional conducting the hypnotic session should be independent of and not regularly employed by the prosecutor, investigator or defense. . . . “Third, any information given to the hypnotist by law enforcement personnel or the defense prior to the hypnotic session must be recorded, either in writing or another suitable form .... “Fourth, before inducing hypnosis the hypnotist should- obtain from the subject a detailed description of the facts as the subject remembers them .... “Fifth, all contacts between the hypnotist and the subject must be recorded. This will establish a record of the pre-induction interview, the hypnotic session, and the post-hypnotic period, enabling a court to determine what information or suggestions the witness may have received .... “Sixth, only the hypnotist and the subject should be present during any phase of the hypnotic session, including the pre-hypnotic testing and the post-hypnotic interview.” 86 N.J. at 545-46 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Haislip