52 Md. App. 186 - Collins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 56 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““1. The person administering the hypnotic session ought to be a mental health person with special training in the use of hypnosis, preferably a psychiatrist or a psychologist. “2. This specially trained person should not be informed about the case verbally. Rather, such person should receive a written memorandum outlining whatever facts are necessary to know. Care should be exercised to avoid any communication that might influence the person’s opinion. “3. Said specially trained person should be an independent professional not responsible to the prosecution, investigators or the defense. “4. All contact between the specially trained person and the subject should be videotaped from beginning to end. “5. Nobody representing the police or the prosecutor or the defendant should be in the same room with the specially trained person while he is working with the subject. “6. Prior to induction a mental health professional should examine the subject to exclude the possibility that the subject is physically or mentally ill and to confirm that the subject possesses sufficient judgment, intelligence, and reason to comprehend what is happening. “7. The specially trained person should elicit a detailed description of the facts as the subject believes them to be prior to the use of hypnosis. “8. The specially trained person should strive to avoid adding any new elements to the subject’s description of her/his experience, including any implicit or explicit cues during the pre-session contac”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 110 Wis. 2d 555 - State v. Armstrong · State v. Haislip

2. “(1) The hypnotic session shall be conducted by an impartial licensed psychiatrist or psychologist trained in the use of hypnosis and thus aware of its possible effects on memory so as to aid the prevention of improper suggestions and confabulation. Appointment of the psychiatrist or psychologist should first be approved by the trial court_ (2) Information given to the hypnotist by either party concerning the case should be noted, preferably in written form, so that the extent of information the subject received from the hypnotist may be determined. (3) Before hypnosis, the hypnotist should obtain a detailed description of the facts from the subject, avoiding adding new elements to the subject’s description. (4) The session should be recorded so a permanent record is available to ensure against suggestive procedures; Videotape is a preferable method of recordation. (5) Preferably, only the hypnotist and subject should be present during any phase of the hypnotic session, but other persons should be allowed to attend if their attendance can be shown to be essential and steps are taken to prevent their influencing the results of the session.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Little v. Armontrout · State v. Peoples

3. ““Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alsbach v. Bader