Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1996, page 2
CONTENTS
Editor‟s Introduction 3
Legal Decision: Borawick v. Shay 4
Commentary on Borawick v. Shay:
The Fate of Hypnotically Retrieved Memories 18
Alan W. Scheflin, Esq.
Commentary on Borawick v. Shay:
Hypnosis, Social Influence, Incestuous Child Abuse,
And Satanic Ritual Abuse: The Iatrogenic Creation of
Horrific Memories for the Remote Past 27
Robert A. Karlin, Ph.D. &Martil T. Orne, M.D., Ph.D.
Ethical Standards for Thought Reform Consultants
Carol Giambalvo, Joseph Kelly, Patrick Ryan, &
Madeleine Landau Tobias 58
Book Reviews
“Crazy” Therapies by Margaret Thaler Singer &Janja Lalich 65
Reviewer: Keith Harary
Prophets of the Apocalypse by Kenneth Samples, Erwin M.
De Castro, Richard Abanes, &Robert J. Lyle 66
Reviewer: Linda James
Take Me for a Ride by Mark Laxer 67
Reviewer: Joseph Szimhart
Dangerous Persuaders by Louise Samways 68
Reviewer: Joseph Szimhart
America’s Alternative Religions, edited by Timothy Miller 68
Reviewer: Arthur A. Dole
Recovering from Churches That Abuse by Ronald Enroth 70
Reviewer: Frank MacHovec
Conversions: A Philosophic Memoir by A. L. Rosenthal 71
Reviewer: Frank MacHovec
Christians in the Crossfire by Mark McCann &James Foster 72
Reviewer: Christina M. Lemieux
*Note: these pages referenced are different than the original published journal. Please check the end of each
article for the original pagination.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1996, page 3
Editor’s Introduction
The Cultic Studies Journal (CSJ) is pleased to present in this issue an in-depth discussion of
issues surrounding hypnotically refreshed testimony. First, we present the opinion of Judge
Walker in Borawick v. Shay, a case in which an alleged victim of sexual abuse testified to
memories of abuse following therapeutic hypnosis. In this opinion, the Court reviews legal
and psychological issues, including the nature of hypnosis and prior courts‟ rulings on the
admissibility of posthypnotic testimony. The Court upholds the “totality-of-the-
circumstances” approach to admissibility of hypnotically refreshed testimony, but rejects
admissibility in the Borawick case because Ms. Borawick‟s hypnotist “lacked adequate
professional qualifications” and because of “the inherent incredibility of Borawick‟s
allegations.” The Court also comments on the applicability of Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, a case that resulted in changed standards for the admissibility of expert
scientific testimony.
After the Borawick opinion, we present two commentaries by distinguished scholars holding
somewhat different views on the issue. Alan Scheflin, Professor of Law at Santa Clara
University Law School, and Drs. Robert Karlin and Martin Orne, respectively a psychologist
from Rutgers University and a psychiatrist from the University of Pennsylvania. These
papers were written about the U.S. Court of Appeals decision before May 28, 1996, when
the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review Borawick v. Shay (Borawick v. Shay, cert.
denied 116 S. Ct. 1869, 134 L. Ed. 2d 966 [1996]).
Professor Scheflin and Drs. Karlin and Orne will continue this discussion in the next issue of
CSJ, in which they will reply to the commentaries appearing here. Believing that this
contentious issue can best be served through in-depth, carefully-deliberated dialogue, CSJ
invites other readers to submit scholarly commentaries on the issues raised here.
This article is an electronic version of an article originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1996, Volume 13,
Number 1, page 1. Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from that of the bound
volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic information in papers that you may write.