Vester v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Review of the scientific literature indicates that when hypnosis is used to refresh recollection, one of the following outcomes occurs: (1) hypnosis produces recollections that are not substantially different from nonhypnotic recollections; (2) it yields recollections that are more inaccurate than nonhypnotic memory; or, most frequently, (3) it results in more information being reported, but these recollections contain both accurate and inaccurate details. When the third condition results, the individual is less likely to be able to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate recollections. There are no data to support a fourth alternative, namely, that hypnosis increases remembering of only accurate information.”

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

2. “takes place, neither expert nor jury nor even the witness himself can differentiate historical fact from fantasy. The Supreme Court of California, in its fairly exhaustive opinion in People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18 , 723 P.2d 1354 , 181 Cal. Rptr. 243 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860 , 103 S.Ct. 133 , 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982), after a review of the pertinent professional literature on the subject, aptly identified and articulated the dangers of using hypnosis to”

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

3. “memory. To that we now turn. III. As a valid psychotherapeutic device hypnosis has long been accepted in the medical and scientific communities. American Medical Association: Medical Use of Hypnosis. JAMA 1958; 168: 186-189. In the therapeutic setting, however, the value of hypnosis is in no way contingent upon the historical accuracy of the memory that may come to light thereunder. Not so uniformly accepted is the use of hypnosis as a means of”

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