Commonwealth v. Kater’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 93 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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “concluded [in Kater ] that testimony is admissible from a witness as to his or her present memory of events remembered prior to hypnotism and that hypnotically aided testimony (that is, testimony that was not available prior to hypnosis) is inadmissible. We recognized that hypnotism itself and the manner in which an hypnotic session was conducted would be appropriate subjects of inquiry when testimony is proffered from a previously hypnotized witness concerning events as remembered prior to hypnosis. In this case [Clay’s], the only demonstrated effect of hypnosis was Dwyer’s increased certainty of his identification of Clay’s photograph. It is just such an increased level of confidence that some experts say hypnosis often produces. The process of hypnotizing Dwyer produced no new evidence against either defendant. We are, therefore, not dealing with what we have called hypnotically aided testimony. We are, however, dealing with the fact that hypnosis apparently enhanced Dwyer’s confidence in his identification of Clay. As to the defendant Watson, we have no difficulty in concluding that he was not prejudiced by the admission of Dwyer’s testimony following hypnosis. We reach the same conclusion as to Dwyer’s identifications of Clay’s photograph and his identification of Clay at the trial. The circumstances of Dwyer’s hypnosis and its possible effect on his testimony were presented to the jury. The evidence demonstrated that hypnosis could, and likely did, enhance Dwyer’s confi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clay v. Vose

2. “In determining whether experts generally accept the reliability of [scientific] evidence, we may properly consider not only the testimony of experts in the record before us but also articles written by experts and the conclusions of other courts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 93 Mass. App. Ct. 381 - Commonwealth v. Ortiz