Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1996, page 25
may have in demonstrating that brainwashing theory has not received sufficient scientific
support. To the extent that “false memory” proponents succeed in their goal of weakening
psychotherapy in general as a science, they may also succeed in strengthening the sway
cults hold over people. Experts may be forbidden access to courtrooms to explain social
influence theory, coercive persuasion, and mind control tactics and techniques.
Borawick may be applauded because it reaches the right legal result, but also it
demonstrates how so-called neutral experts can contaminate not only the law, but also the
very basis of human knowledge.
The United States Supreme Court has been asked to review the Borawick decision (Petition,
1996). If it does so, we must hope that the Court will do three things: (1) review the
scientific literature closely on hypnosis, memory, and repressed memory, (2) uphold a
flexible, liberal test for the admission of hypnotically refreshed recollection, and (3) give Ms.
Borawick her day in court. The first point allows the law to be built on science, not political
belief. The second point provides that courts will dispense justice by hearing the claims of
those who have been cruelly injured by others. The third point is one of simple fairness: Ms.
Borawick wants the opportunity to state her claim before a judge in a pretrial hearing. Why
is that too much to ask?
References
American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs. (1985). Scientific status of
refreshing recollection by the use of hypnosis. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 253, 1918.
American Society of Clinical Hypnosis. (1995). Clinical hypnosis and memory: Guidelines for
clinicians and for forensic hypnosis. Des Plaines, IL: American Society of Clinical
Hypnosis Press.
Borawick v. Shay, 68 F.3d 597 (2nd Cir. 1995).
Bowman, C.G., &Mertz, E. (1996). A dangerous direction: Legal intervention in sexual
abuse survivor therapy. Harvard Law Review, 109, 549-639.
Brown, D., Scheflin, A.W., &Hammond, D.C. (In press). Memory, trauma treatment and
law.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 112 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
Giannelli, P.C. (1995). The admissibility of hypnotic evidence in U.S. courts. International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 43, 21-233.
Harding v. State, 5 Md.App. 230, 246 A.2d 302 (1968), cert. denied, Harding v. Maryland,
395 U.S. 949, 89 S.Ct. 2030, 23 L.Ed.2d 468 (1969).
Isely v. Capuchin Province, 877 F. Supp. 1055 (E.D. Mich. 1995).
Laurence, J.-R., &Perry, C. (1988). Hypnosis, will, and memory. New York: Guilford Press.
Loftus, E., &Ketcham, K. (1994). The myth of repressed memory: False memories and
allegations of sexual abuse. New York: St. Martin‟s Press.
McCann, T., &Sheehan, P.W. (1988). Hypnotically induced pseudomemories --Sampling
their conditions among hypnotizable subjects. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 339-346.
McConkey, K.M., &Sheehan, P.W. (1995). Hypnosis, memory, and behavior in criminal
investigation. New York: Guilford Press.
Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief and Brief of Amici Curiae, Borawick v. Shay, No. 95-
1576 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1996).
Ofshe, R., &Watters, E. (1994). Making monsters: False memories, psychotherapy, and
sexual hysteria. New York: Scribner‟s.
People v. Caro, 46 Cal.3d 1035, 251 Cal.Rptr. 757, 761 P.2d 680 (1988).
may have in demonstrating that brainwashing theory has not received sufficient scientific
support. To the extent that “false memory” proponents succeed in their goal of weakening
psychotherapy in general as a science, they may also succeed in strengthening the sway
cults hold over people. Experts may be forbidden access to courtrooms to explain social
influence theory, coercive persuasion, and mind control tactics and techniques.
Borawick may be applauded because it reaches the right legal result, but also it
demonstrates how so-called neutral experts can contaminate not only the law, but also the
very basis of human knowledge.
The United States Supreme Court has been asked to review the Borawick decision (Petition,
1996). If it does so, we must hope that the Court will do three things: (1) review the
scientific literature closely on hypnosis, memory, and repressed memory, (2) uphold a
flexible, liberal test for the admission of hypnotically refreshed recollection, and (3) give Ms.
Borawick her day in court. The first point allows the law to be built on science, not political
belief. The second point provides that courts will dispense justice by hearing the claims of
those who have been cruelly injured by others. The third point is one of simple fairness: Ms.
Borawick wants the opportunity to state her claim before a judge in a pretrial hearing. Why
is that too much to ask?
References
American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs. (1985). Scientific status of
refreshing recollection by the use of hypnosis. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 253, 1918.
American Society of Clinical Hypnosis. (1995). Clinical hypnosis and memory: Guidelines for
clinicians and for forensic hypnosis. Des Plaines, IL: American Society of Clinical
Hypnosis Press.
Borawick v. Shay, 68 F.3d 597 (2nd Cir. 1995).
Bowman, C.G., &Mertz, E. (1996). A dangerous direction: Legal intervention in sexual
abuse survivor therapy. Harvard Law Review, 109, 549-639.
Brown, D., Scheflin, A.W., &Hammond, D.C. (In press). Memory, trauma treatment and
law.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 112 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
Giannelli, P.C. (1995). The admissibility of hypnotic evidence in U.S. courts. International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 43, 21-233.
Harding v. State, 5 Md.App. 230, 246 A.2d 302 (1968), cert. denied, Harding v. Maryland,
395 U.S. 949, 89 S.Ct. 2030, 23 L.Ed.2d 468 (1969).
Isely v. Capuchin Province, 877 F. Supp. 1055 (E.D. Mich. 1995).
Laurence, J.-R., &Perry, C. (1988). Hypnosis, will, and memory. New York: Guilford Press.
Loftus, E., &Ketcham, K. (1994). The myth of repressed memory: False memories and
allegations of sexual abuse. New York: St. Martin‟s Press.
McCann, T., &Sheehan, P.W. (1988). Hypnotically induced pseudomemories --Sampling
their conditions among hypnotizable subjects. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 339-346.
McConkey, K.M., &Sheehan, P.W. (1995). Hypnosis, memory, and behavior in criminal
investigation. New York: Guilford Press.
Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief and Brief of Amici Curiae, Borawick v. Shay, No. 95-
1576 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1996).
Ofshe, R., &Watters, E. (1994). Making monsters: False memories, psychotherapy, and
sexual hysteria. New York: Scribner‟s.
People v. Caro, 46 Cal.3d 1035, 251 Cal.Rptr. 757, 761 P.2d 680 (1988).
