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.
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.
