Spontaneous Hypnosis in the Ÿ Or En Sic Context

Spontaneous Hypnosis in the ÿ or en sic Context

John 0.Beahrs, MD

"Hypnosis" denotes either specific phenomena (altered volition, perception, cognition, and recall) or interpersonal transactions that often elicit them. Basic research leads to paradox: hypnosis is validated, and shown to be dissociative in essence, at the same time that neither its phenomena nor transactions can be separated from those of everyday living without logical absurdity. This paradox can be resolved by assuming that consciousness and volition are complex, occurring simultaneously at many levels in the same waking individual. Hypnotic-like phenomena and transactions occur spontaneously, in either covert or overt forms. The former are pervasive, whereas the latter are often associated with psychological trauma. Forensic implications are twofold: for criminal responsibility, and the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Hypnotic-like states and transactions are rarely affirmed as an insanity defense because at some level these subjects are aware of what they are doing and why. Diminished capacity and mitigation of sentence are more appropriate defense strategies. Several conflicted traditions of case law have evolved to protect eyewitness testimony from hypnotic-like distortions in cognition, perception, and memory that can occur either during or outside of formal hypnotic procedures. These include the admissibility of posthypnotic testimony, due process safeguards at eyewitness identification procedures, and the admissibility of expert testimony on the findings of eyewitness research. These areas are inseparable from one another and demand a systematic coordinated approach.

The word "hypnosis" is used to denote nomena include a shift toward either certain unexplained phenomena, subjective nonvolition (a hand "just interpersonal transactions that often lifts"), altered perception that can in- elicit them, or a formal ritualistic pro- clude positive and negative hallucina- cedure. These are its phenomenal, trans- tions in any modality, a partially re- actional, and formal/procedural defini- gressed cognitive style often termed tions, respectively. The defining phe- adaptive regression, and memory changes that include amnesia, hyperm- nesia, and a variety of distortions such John 0. Beahrs is associate professor of psychiatry, The Oregon Health Sciences University and Portland VA as pseudomemories and enhanced con- Medical Center.Address reprint requests to John 0. fidenc~.'-~Hypnotic transactions in- Beahrs, M. D. Mental Health Clinic, I 16A-OPC Port- land VA Medical Center Portland, Oregon 97207 volve a relationship between two or Presented at Annual Scientific Meeting, American more individuals within a meaningful Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, San Francisco, California, October 23. 1988 context, such that communications The views presented in this paper are the author's own, from one are received by the other in a and do not represent those of the Veterans Administra- tion. way that leads to one or more of the

Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1989 171 Spontaneous Hypnosis characteristic phenomena that we call versus voluntary action, and the gamut hypnoti~.~-~In its most restricted sense, of altered states of awareness. formal/procedural, "hypnosis" refers to This paradox arises from two parallel a deliberately structured setting in which traditions of hypnosis research whose a "hypnotist" agrees to hypnotize a will- findings appear to contradict one an- ing subject, implements a formal proce- ~ther.~'~'~The first, loosely termed "state dure to achieve specific goals, and know- theory," has shown that hypnosis in- ingly labels the process as "hypnosis." volves parallel processing of simultane- Phenomenal, transactional, and formal/ ously conscious elements. Using a real procedural elements of hypnosis overlap versus simulator design, Ornelo found to varying degrees but are sufficiently hypnosis to involve a type of "trance distinct in principle that any discussion logic" in which a subject tolerates con- of hypnosis must keep clear the sense in tradictory perceptions. Extending earlier which the word is used at that particular work of Janet, ' Hilgard's12 discovery of time. a "hidden observer," with more accurate perception of the hypnotic context, led The Paradox of Hypnosis to formulating a "neodissociation" the- Research ory. Watkins and Watkins13 elicited Pursuing definitions of hypnosis to multiple hidden observers in single sub- their logical conclusion, coupled with jects. basic research findings, leads to a fun- An important branch of "state" re- damental paradox elsewhere termed an search focuses on the effects of hypnosis "A/Not-A ~bsurdity,"~.7. whose reso- on perception and recall that can so lution is essential to understanding the directly impact eyewitness testimony implications of hypnosis research. First, (reviewed by Diamond, Orne, and hypnosis is defined in terms of clear other^'^-'^). In laboratory analogue stud- operational variables like subjective ies of hypnotically "refreshed" recall, nonvolition. Second, basic research at- new information is minimal, and mem- tempts to find what distinguishes hyp- ory gaps are filled in by confabulated nosis from what it is not. Data converge "pseudomemories." The process can al- toward either of two dominating conclu- ter the content of prehypnotic memory, sions: either all waking consciousness consolidate thought patterns, and im- can be viewed as "hypnotic," or what we part false subjective certitude; and the had already called "hypnosis" is insepa- new "perception" is generally consistent rable from the waking continuum; with the known facts of a case, all of hence, the word appears to lose meaning which make cross-examination difficult as denoting anything special. Yet, if we and can compromise justice. attempt to discard the term as "unpar- The second research tradition, "non- simonio~s,"~we are left with those pro- state" (skeptical, social-psychological), found subjective distinctions that led to shows that it is impossible to separate its use in the first place-involuntary hypnosis from the continuum of waking

172 Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1989 Beahrs experience as a reliably separate ical importance to the law. The ever- "state. "9. I7 Barber" showed that maxi- present nonhypnotic component estab- mally nonhypnotic control variables like lishes criminal responsibility, and the voluntary task motivation and hypera- ever-present covert hypnotic elements lertness could yield hypnotic phenom- are of grave concern for the reliability of ena as reliably as a formal induction. eyewitness testimony. Other nonhypnotic control variables that yield hypnotic effects are imagina- Types of Spontaneous Hypnosis tion, relaxation. and role behavior-so Both hypnotic phenomena and hyp- pervasive that if they are called "hypnotic transactions occur widely outside nosis" then all waking experience is hyp- a professional setting, or in structured notic. Extending this tradition, Spanos" settings whose overt purpose is not to reports that the form of hypnotic struc- achieve or utilize hypnosis per se. Such tures like hidden observers is inextrica- "spontaneous hypnosis" can be conven- bly dependent on the psychosocial con- iently categorized along two overlapping text in which the phenomena are elic- dimensions: first, whether or not it is ited: contextual effects dominate over overt, readily distinguished from the any that can be linked to "hypnosis" per overall waking continuum; and, second, se. whether phenomenal or transactional The paradox can be resolved by a new elements predominate. This leads to and initially uncomfortable type of four overlapping types of spontaneous causal reasoning.' This assumes that hypnosis: (1) overt phenomena or consciousness and volition are highly "states" of relative nonvolition and/or complex. The hypnosis-nonhypnosis altered perception, cognition, and recall; distinction is most meaningful, but (2) overt transactions or "influence com- never complete. Some levels of con- munication;" (3)covert phenomena, usu- sciousness will meet criteria for hypno- ally termed "unconscious;" and (4) cov- sis, others will not. One or the other may ert transactions. predominate in a given individual at The "states" range from transient phe- different times. If there is sufficient dis- nomena like depersonalization, time dis- continuity between the two, true for tortion, parapraxes, amnesia, and auto- some but not all individuals, we can talk maticity, to severe or recurrent states of hypnosis as a "state." State theory is like the conversion and dissociative dis- validated as a usefill approximation. orders,', '8-20 with multiple personality a There must always at all times, however, pr~totype.~Is remain significant elements of menta- Influence communications with a tion that meet criteria for "hypnotic" clear hypnotic character are manifold. and, conversely, support the nonstate Most truly spontaneous are the recipro- findings that hypnosis is not truly sepa- cal influence of people in love, whose rable from the waking continuum in any hypnotic character was explicitly recog- special sense. These elements are of crit- nized by Freud." Psychotherapeutic

Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1989 173 Beahrs

transference can be formulated simi- must be received at levels of awareness 1arly.hnd suggestive persuasion domi- usually termed "unconscious," a cardi- nates the advertising industry. More om- nal principle also deliberately used by inous transactions that may elicit disso- experienced hypn~therapists.~.'~A mem- ciative phenomena and profoundly alter ory must also have been called forth to how one experiences himself and his active awareness. the process of deci- world include cultism" and coercive sion-making helping to cement whatever persuasion such as "brain~ashing."'~ distortions might have o~curred.'~ Covert phenomena can be considered In the 1967 landmark case of U. S. v. '"hypnotic" when they encompass com- W~de,'~the U. S. Supreme Court stated plex motor activity that seems to "just that "the influence of improper sugges- happen," or complex mentation occur- tion upon identifying witnesses probably ring outside of conscious awareness. By uccozints for more tniscarriages ofjustice definition, these are partial-"hypnotic" than any other single factor-perhaps it only at one level, but not another. When is responsible for more sz~cherrors than a person discusses his life plans while all other factors combined." [emphasis automatically driving a busy freeway, he added] is "hypnotized" at the level of the driver, but not the life planner. At this level, Trauma and Spontaneous spontaneous hypnosis pervades all wak- Hypnosis ing consciousness. Of academic interest The experience of a catastrophic stres- is that communications received at the sor is nearly always accompanied by pro- "hypnotic" level, such as the car radio found alterations in subjective volition, by the driver, may profoundly alter sub- sense of time, and other cognitive/per- sequent cognition and memory in ex- ceptual alterations that meet criteria for actly the manner of formal hypnosis. overt hypnotic states. These are espe- Covert hypnotic transactions, equally cially important in criminal law because pervasive, have received much appropri- of the frequency with which assault vic- ate attention by the courts under the tims and witnesses will have been trau- labels of "procedural suggestion" and matized. Because of obvious ethical con- "suggestive identifi~ation."'~-" Most straints against abusing experimental common in criminal law are the intro- subjects, controlled research is not pos- duction of new percepts, cognitions, and sible, permitting the AMA Council on other sources of bias to eyewitnesses dur- Scientific Affairs to write off the data as ing their identification of suspects in merely "ane~dotal."~~Despite this limi- photographs and lineups. A cardinal tation, two lines of inquiry strongly sup- principle is that "for change to occur, port the relationship between trauma the subject must not notice discrepancies and hypnosis: first, high hypnotizability between original event and the misinfor- of patients with disorders believed to mation that follow^."'^ [emphasis follow catastrophic trauma, along with added] That is, the suggested content frequent spontaneous trances in these

174 Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1989 Spontaneous Hypnosis patients; and, second, short term ex posr transactional as well as phenomenal cri- fucto surveys of the psychological con- teria for hypnosis and lends substance comitants of large scale traumatic to fears that such victims can truly be events. "brainwashed." Multiple personalities are most highly hypnotizable, and the disorder is often Case Law: 1. Criminal conceptualized as one of hypnosis.'. I*-'' Responsibility A strong consensus also supports a traumatic etiology,", " and Kluft," reports Since hypnotic phenomena include spontaneous hypnosis to be one of the decreased subjective volition and mark- defenses most commonly encountered edly altered perception/cognition/recall, in its treatment. Similar findings have this calls to mind both the volitional and been reported for phobic disorders3' and cognitive arms of the insanity defense. atypical psycho~es;~'also, long term se- When crimes are committed in such an quelae of trauma and increased hypno- altered state, it is not surprising that tizability scores have been found in pa- pleas of "not guilty by reason of insan- tients with posttraumatic stress disorder ity" (NGRI) will often be heard by the per se. 34 courts. These can be credible only for Symonds" surveyed a sample of a overt states and transactions, not the hundred healthy individuals; all had ex- covert processes of equal relevance to perienced at least one episode of "ter- eyewitness testimony. Because NGRI re- ror," and virtually 100 percent had as- quires the presence of a mental disorder, sociated changes in the quality of con- spontaneous hypnosis will be most rele- sciousness. A large VA study'6 found vant in the severe dissociative disorders: that 41.2 percent of Vietnam combat psychogenic fugue and multiple person- veterans had "no feelings" during com- ality (MPD). The same issues are raised bat; persistence of stress symptoms long in both, illustrated by the widely publi- afterward indicates dissociation of those cized Biunclu' (Hillside Strangler) case." feelings at the time. In Terr's7' follow- Some experts argued that the accused up studies of traumatized children, over suffered from MPD and committed half experienced a "time skew" in which homicide in a dissociated state beyond subsequent events were falsely "remem- awareness or control,40 whereas others bered'' as if before the event, leading to maintained that this was willful fabrica- beliefs like having been "given an tion by an incorrigible psycl~opath.~' omen." accompanied by obstinate sub- Beahrshrgued that adequate under- jective certitude. Strentz" reported the standing may require that we simulta- "Stockholm syndrome" in adult terror- neously take both complementary per- ist' hostage victims, with pathological spectives, even though contradictory. bonding to their captors and aversion to The fury with which dichotomo~~sposi- helping authorities: in two small groups tions are held may reflect the tacit as- the frequency was 100 percent. This met sumption that real dissociative disorder

Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law,Vol. 17, No. 2, 1989 175 Beahrs

implies "not guilty" and the reverse. level. In the "usual self' state one may This assumption does not hold. be fully amnesic, but at the level of the An insanity defense rarely succeeds offense fails to meet either the volitional for MPD. Most commonly, the diagno- or cognitive tests for insanity and must sis is successfully impeached by the pros- be judged guilty. Incidentally, the Kirk- ecution, a state's witness may testify that land court did find the accused "guilty antisocial personality is more appropri- but mentally ill," permitting considera- ate, or material evidence may establish tion for a compassionate disposition. the mens rea component of guilt by Findings of "diminished capacity" are showing the voluntary nature of the accepted almost as often as "not guilty" crime itself. Few such cases are appealed; is denied. when they are, the conviction is gener- Judgements like Grimsle-v and Kirk- ally affi~-med.~~-~~ land are appropriate at several levels: More decisive is a second route to they respect scientific knowledge about conviction, when dissociative disorder is complex consciousness and hypnosis, affirmed. In State v. Grim~ley,~~a 1982 avoiding debates like Bianchi that can- Ohio appellate court found that "there not be answered even in principle; they was only one person driving the car and adhere to the literal intent of the insanity only one person accused of drunk driv- defense; they adequately protect society ing. It is immaterial whether she was in by holding offenders accountable; and one state of consciousness or another, so they preserve the discretion for compas- long as in the personality then controlling sionate sentencing. In addition, account- her behavior, she was conscious and her ability has been found therapeutic for actions were a product of her own voli- many patients4'. 48 tion. " [emphasis added] In Kirkland v. Crimes can also be committed under State,46a 1983 Georgia appellate court the influence of coercive persuasion with affirmed a conviction for a bank robbery hypnotic elements, such as cult indoc- committed in a fugue state: "the person- trination, brainwashing and terrorism. ality, whoever she was, who robbed the U. S. v. Hear~t~~is the prototypical case. bank did so with rational, purposeful Expert psychiatric testimony on dimin- criminal intent and with knowledge that ished capacity was introduced into evi- it was wrong." dence but not followed up; Patty Hearst These rulings show a keen intuitive was convicted of bank robbery, despite appreciation of hypnotic dissociation be- prior brainwashing by terrorist captors. yond what is common knowledge. Just Lunde and Wilsonz3 explore the legal as some significant "hypnotic" compo- implications, citing not only Hearst but nent pervades all consciousness, in the the relatively few Korean War ex-POWs deepest hypnotic states that "part" that brought to courtmartial for anti-Ameri- cames out the requisite thoughts and can actions committed under duress. actions does so with full knowledge and For reasons similar to GrimsleylKirk- volition and is not hypnotized at that l~nd,~~,46 an insanity defense is rarely

176 Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1989 Spontaneous Hypnosis defensible; the relevant offenses in treatment of crime victims who might Hearst remained voluntary and done need to testify against their assailants. with conscious awareness, supporting Beahrss2353 further argued that compre- conviction. Even diminished capacity hensive exclusion was impossible due to may be difficult to argue. The authors the pervasive extent of spontaneous hyp- proposed "mitigation of sentence" as an nosis and its elicitation by major alternative defense, based on the three- trauma. fold criteria of a defendant's susceptibil- The U. S. Supreme Court first ruled ity, amount of coercion relative to se- on the admissibility issue in 1987 in verity of crime, and lack of opportunity Rock v. Arkan~as,~~permitting testi- to avoid reprisals. They claim that the mony by a formerly hypnotized defend- sentences actually imposed by military ant, respecting the right to testify for courts reflected this reasoning. one's own defense, and when other evidence supports its reliability. It deferred Case Law: 2. Reliability of on the more urgent question of hypnosis Eyewitness Testimony with victims and other witnesses. Sub- Three legal issues have developed, sequently, in People v. Rorner~,~~the each with its own tradition of conflicting Colorado Supreme Court refused either case law, in the attempt to protect eye- a per se exclusion or per se admissibility, witness testimony from contamination instead permitting posthypnotic testi- by deliberate and spontaneous hypnotic mony when reliability was supported by transactions. These are the admissibility a preponderance of the evidence. These of posthypnotic testimony, due process recent reversals of trend should stimu- safeguards for eyewitness identification late a vigorous renewal of the ongoing procedures, and the admissibility of ex- debate. pert testimony about the findings of The courts are just as aware of the eyewitness research. Their common goal risks of covert suggestion at eyewit- is to protect the reliability of testimony ness identification, whose effects are from inappropriate suggestion. similar to the risks of formal hypnosis. The dominating scientific consensus30 The U. S. Supreme Court mandated is that the forensic hazards of memory guidelines to protect eyewitness identi- "refreshment" far outweigh its limited fication from this influence. The corner- value, and the legal trend of the early stone was U. S. v. W~de,'~mandating 1980s has been toward per se exclusion right to counsel at lineup identifications. of posthypnotic testimony, as in People Presence of defense counsel discourages v. Shirley," on the assumption that such suggestive communication, and know- testimony has been irrevocably contam- ing it to have occurred may allow it to inated. Spiege15' argued against this be successfully impeached. When Wade trend, claiming that much accurate tes- guidelines are violated, Gilbert v. timony is also excluded, and that avoid- California5%pecifies that the testimony ing hypnosis puts an unfair damper on be excluded per se. As noted by S0be1,*~

Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1989 177 Beahrs

subsequent Supreme Court decisions specified in the 196 1 landmark, U. S. v. have progressively emasculated the Tev~ire.~'In State v. Buell, 1 986,63Ohio WadelGilbert protections. Kirby v. permitted expert testimony on the gen- Illinoiss7 limited their scope to identifi- eral findings of eyewitness research but cations made after indictment, not to barred its being applied to reliability of the greater number that precede it with particular testimony. Sanded4 has pro- equal risk. Wade protectors also do not posed additional safeguards to instruct apply to photo identifications, despite jurors, and opposing points of view are their equal or greater potential for well represented in Wells and Loft~s.~~ suggestive err~r.'~ Another attempt to protect reliability Summary and Recommendations is the admission to court of expert testi- The phenomena and transactions that mony on the findings of eyewitness re- constitute "hypnosis" are of profound search, specifically on the hazards of interest and importance both to psycho- suggestive identification in general and logical theory and the law. The foremost with photos, and to correct the mistaken research finding is that complex con- intuitive assumption that witness certi- sciousness is the rule, not the exception. tude parallels witness accuracy. Recent What is true at one level is false at an- federal decisions exclude such testimony other, rendering linear causal reasoning on grounds that the hazards of testimony (either-or) untenable except when we are are common knowledge, and that such able to differentiate the particular levels evidence usurps the proper domain of that are relevant. This is equally true for the jury. U. S. v. Cri~tophe5~affirms the the types of spontaneous hypnosis that 1973 landmark U. S. v. Arn~ral,~~noting pervade our waking experience-subtle, that expert testimony "does not conform as well as overt. Divided consciousness to a generally accepted explanatory the- is not necessarily a problem for criminal ory" and that there is "no empirical law, as long as the concepts of criminal evidence" that jurors are unaware of guilt and diminished capacity are differ- problems with eyewitness testimony. entiated, as in the Grimsley4' and A 1987 Washington appellate court Kirklana"16decisions. limits admissibility to where there are Admissibility of posthypnotic testi- "serious contradictions in the eyewitness mony is more problematic, due to the testimony, as well as a proper 'fit' be- hypnotic influences always acting on our tween these contradictions and the pro- cognition and perception, and the like- posed expert te~timony."~~A slight trend lihood that experiencing a violent crime toward admissibility of eyewitness re- and its aftermath strongly worsens these search data is reflected in state supreme influences without our being able to court decisions. Utah, in State v. L~ng,~'know their direction. I strongly oppose requires that instructions be given to per se exclusion of formal hypnosis, not jurors regarding eyewitness issues, when- for any disagreement with its rationale, ever relevant, citing guidelines earlier but because of three additional factors.

178 Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1989 Spontaneous Hypnosis

First, it is only a pseudosolution; by sander^,^^ address the same issues at excluding only a tiny facet of a far these other levels. Justice is best served greater problem, it begs the issue of what if these inextricably interrelated issues needs to be done. Second, when overt are addressed in a consistent, coordi- hypnotic states or transactions are likely nated manner. to have accompanied a crime or its aftermath, then subsequent hypnosis, by vir- References tue of state-dependent learning, may be Hilgard ER: Hypnotic Susceptibility. New more reparative of accurate memory: York, Harcourt. Brace and World, 1965 Orne MT: The construct of hypnosis: impli- and even when not, the formal proce- cations of the definition for research and dure is no longer a dominant factor in practice. Ann NY Acad Sci 296: 14-33. 1977 nonreliability. Finally, our system of ju- Beahrs JO: Unity and Multiplicity: Multi- level Consciousness of Self in Hypnosis, Psy- risprudence depends on maximum in- chiatric Disorder and Mental Health. New formation being available to judge and York, Brunner/Mazel, 1982 Gill MM, Brenman M: Hypnosis and Re- jury, and additional safeguards like jury lated States: A Psychoanalytic Study in instruction on eyewitness research can Regression. New York, International Uni- provide at least partial protection from versities Press, 1959 Haley J: Strategies of Psychotherapy. New the hazards of hypnosis. York, Grune and Stratton, 1963 Four specific criteria have been pro- Erickson MH, Rossi EL, Rossi SI: Hypnotic Realities: The Induction of Hypnosis and posed to clarify when posthypnotic tes- Forms of Indirect Suggestion. New York, timony can and should be excluded." Irvington, 1976 First, for the particular witness, hypnosis Beahrs JO: Co-consciousness: a common de- nominator in hypnosis. multiple personality and nonhypnosis must be reliably sepa- and normalcy. Am J Clin Hypn 26: 100- 13, rable states. Second, the particular hyp- 1983 Beahrs JO: Limits of Scientific Psychiatry: notic procedure is likely to have been a The Role of Uncertainty in Mental Health. dominating source of nonreliability. New York. Brunner/Mazel. 1986 Third, spontaneous hypnosis of signifi- Barber TX: Suggested ("hypnotic") behavior: the trance paradigm versus an alternative cant proportions is not likely to have paradigm, in Hypnosis: Research Develop- accompanied the crime or its sequelae. ments and Perspectives. Edited by Fromm E, Shor RE. Chicago, Aldine-Atherton. 1972, Finally, the effects of exclusion must pp 1 15-82 support justice, not running afoul of Orne MT: The nature of hypnosis: artifact other legal principles in the particular and essence. J Abnormal Soc Psychol 58: 277-99, 1959 case. Janet P: Psychological Healing: A Historical These criteria will be met in many and Clinical Study. New York. Macmillan, 1925 (1919) cases, but not all. In modified form they Hilgard ER: Divided Consciousness: Multi- are equally relevant to distorting influ- ple Controls in Human Thought and Action. ences outside of formal hypnotic proce- New York. Wiley, 1977 Watkins JG, Watkins HH: Ego states and dures that share the same phenomena hidden observers. J Alt States Consciousness and transactional features. The general 5: 3-18, 1979-1980 Diamond BL: Inherent problems in the use eyewitness safeguards of U. S. v. Te1- of pretrial hypnosis on a prospective witness. f~ire,~'with their proposed update by Calif Law Rev 68: 3 13-49, 1980

Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1989 Beahrs

15. Orne MT: the use and misuse of hypnosis in J Clin Hyp 24: 230-40, 1982 court. Int J Clin Exp Hyp 27: 3 1 1-4 1, 1979 32. Frankel FH: Hypnosis: trance as a coping 16. Orne MT, Soskis DA, Dinges DF, Orne EC: mechanism. New York. Plenum, 1976 Hypnotically induced testimony, in Eyewit- 33. Spiegel H, Fink R: Hysterical psychosis and ness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives. hypnotizability. Am J Psychiatry 136: 777- Edited by Wells GL, Loftus EF. Cambridge, 81, 1979 Cambridge University Press, 1984 34. Stutman RK, Bliss EL: Posttraumatic stress 17. Spanos NP: Hypnotic behavior: a social-psy- disorder, hypnotizability, and imagery. Am J chological interpretation of amnesia, analge- Psychiatry 142: 741-3. 1985 sia. and "trance logic." Behav Brain Sci 9: 35. Symonds M: Victim responses to terror. Ann 449-502, I986 NY Acad Sci 347: 129-36 18. Bliss EL: Multiple personalities: a report of 36. Egendorf AM, Kadushin C, Laufer RS, et a/: 14 cases with implications for schizophrenia Legacies of Vietnam: Comparative Adjust- and hysteria. Arch Gen Psychiatry 37: 1388- ments of Veterans and their Peers. New 97, 1980 York. The Center For Policy Research, 198 1 19. Kluft RP (Ed): Childhood Antecedents of 37. Terr L: Chowchilla revisited: the effects of Multiple Personality. Washington, DC, psychic trauma four years after a schoolbus American Psychiatric Press, 1985 kidnapping. Am J Psychiatry 140: 1543-50, 20. Barun BG (Ed): Treatment of Multiple Per- 1983 sonality Disorder. Washington DC, Ameri- 38. Strentz T: The Stockholm syndrome: law can Psychiatric Press, 1986 enforcement policy and ego defenses of the 2 1. Freud S: Group Psychology and the Analysis hostage. Ann NY Acad Sci 347: 137-50, of the Ego. Edited and Translated by 1980 Strachey J. New York, Norton, 1979 (1921) 39. State v. Bianchi, No. 79- 10 1 16. Wash, Super. 22. Galanter M: Charismatic religious sects and Ct. (1979) psychiatry: an overview. Am J Psychiatry 40. Watkins JG: The Bianchi (L. A. Hillside 139: 1539-48. 1982 Strangler) case: sociopath of multiple person- 23. Lunde DT, Wilson TE: Brainwashing as a ality? Int J Clin Exper Hyp 32: 67-101, 1984 defense to criminal liability: Patty Hearst 41. Orne MT, Dinges DR, Orne EC: On the revisited. Crim Law Bull 13: 337-82, 1977 differential diagnosis of multiple personality 24. Wells GL. Loftus EF (Eds): Eyewitness Tes- in the forensic context. Int J Clin Exper Hyp timony: Psychological Perspectives. Cam- 32: 1 18-69, 1984 bridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984 42. Gallion v. U. S., 386 F. 2d 255 (1967) 25. Hall DF, Loftus EF, Tousignant JP: Poste- 43. Ramer v. U. S., 390 F. 2d 564 (1968) vent information and changes in recollection 44. Commonwealth v. Marshall, 364 N. E. 2d for a natural event, in Eyewitness Testimony: 1237, Mass. Sup. Ct. (1 977) Psychological Perspectives. Edited by Wells 45. State v. Grimsley, 3 Ohio App. 3d 265, 444 GL, Loftus EF. Cambridge, Cambridge Uni- N. E. 2d 107 1 (1982) versity Press. 1984 46. Kirkland v. State, 166 Ga. Ct. App. 478, 304 26. Malpass RS. Devine PC: Suggestion in line- S. E. 2d 561, (1983) ups and photospreads, in Eyewitness Testi- 47. Miller RD. Maier GJ: FActors affecting the mony: Psychological Perspectives. Edited by decision to prosecute mental patients for Wells GL, Loftus EF. Cambridge. Cambridge criminal behavior. Hosp Community Psy- University Press. 1984 chiatry 38: 50-4, 1987 27. Sobel NR: Eyewitness Identification: Legal 48. Hoge SK, Gutheil TG: The prosecution of and Practical Problems (2nd edition). Edited psychiatric patients for assaults on staff: a by D Pridgen. New York, Clark Boardman preliminary empirical study. Hosp Commu- Co, 1987 nity Psychiatry 38: 44-9, 1987 28. Erickson MH, Rossi EL: Hypnotherapy: An 49. U. S. v. Hearst, Cr. 74-364-OJC, 412 F. Supp. Exploratory Casebook. New York. Irvington, 889, N. D. Cal. (1976) 1979 50. People v. Shirley. 31 Cal. 3d 18, Cal. Sup. 29. U. S. v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967) Ct. (1982) 18 1 Cal. Rptr. 243,644 P. 2d 775 30. American Medical Association, Council on 5 1. Spiegel D: The Shirley decision: the cure is Scientific Affairs: Council Report: scientific worse than the disease. in Advances in Fo- status of refreshing recollection by the use of rensic Psychology and Psychiatry (vol 2). Ed- hypnosis. JAMA 253: 19 18-23, 1985 ited by RW Rieber. Nonvood NJ, Ablex 3 1. Kluft RP: Varieties of hypnotic interventions Publishing Co, 1987 in the treatment of multiple personality. Am 52. Beahrs JO: Boundary dilemmas in forensic

180 Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1989 Spontaneous Hypnosis

hypnosis. Presented at the 16th Annual 58. U. S. v. Christophe, 833 F. 2d 1296 (1987) Meeting Albuqurque, NM, presented on Oc- 59. U. S. v. Amaral, 488 F. 2d 1148 (1973) tober 10, 1985 Annual Meeting, American 60. State v. Johnson, 743 P. 2d 290, 49 Wash. Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, p 26. App. 432 (1987) 1985 6 1. State v. Long, 72 1 P. 2d 483, Utah Sup Ct 53. Beahrs JO: Hypnosis can not be fully nor (1986) reliably excluded from the courtroom. Am J 62. U. S. v. Telfaire, 469 F. 2d 552. CADC (1972) Clin Hypn. 3 1 : 18-27, I988 63. State v. Buell, 22 Ohio St. 3d 124, 489 N. E. 54. Rock v. Arkansas, 107 S. Ct. 2704 (1987) 2d 795, Ohio Sup. Ct. (1986) 55. People v. Romero, 746 P. 2d 534, Colo. Sup. 64. Sanders R: Helping the jury evaluate eye- Ct. (1987) witness testimony: the need for additional 56. Gilbert v. California. 388 U. S. 263 (1967) safeguards. Am J Crim Law 12: 189-224, 57. Kirby v. Illinois. 406 U. S. 682 (1 9 72) 1984

Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1989