Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1996, page 38
To highlight some general problems with hypnotically influenced recall in civil litigation,
however, we will begin with litigation involving hypnosis and automobile accidents.
In the typical automobile accident involving hypnosis, an accident occurs and a victim is
either amnesic for critical events or has recalled and reported events that do not support his
lawsuit. Hypnosis is employed to “refresh” recall of the events. The hypnotist, who
sometimes observes the Hurd safeguards and sometimes does not, induces hypnosis, and
the subject remembers the disputed facts. In all the cases with which we are familiar, the
hypnotically influenced memory strongly favored the subject‟s position in the lawsuit. In
these cases, the difficulty of detecting simulation, the ability to lie during hypnosis, and
secondary gain attendant to a particular story contribute to the unreliability and self-serving
nature of posthypnotic testimony. Even if the subject is entirely honest, after hypnosis he is
likely to remember only what he wants to remember and will later testify to those memories
with great conviction. The key is that hypnosis justifies or at least legitimizes a change in
memory. Whether the subject is amnesic for critical details (Karlin, in press) or has
previously asserted an alternative, less self-serving story (e.g., Sprynczynatyk v. General
Motors, 1985), the old version of events is replaced with the new.
For example, in the two cases reported by Karlin (in press), both victims suffered
anterograde and retrograde amnesia for their automobile accident. In the first case, a
woman driving a three-wheel “all-terrain” vehicle lost control and went off the road.
Because the woman suffered moderate to severe brain damage, remained in a coma for
days, and lost a good deal of procedural and semantic memory along with autobiographical
information, it was clear that she did not permanently store any memories of the accident.
Several years later, a psychologist hypnotized and age regressed her. Not surprisingly, the
woman remembered her vehicle as uncontrollable through no fault of her own. The accident
was the fault of the vehicle, not the fault of her driving. As state law required the
psychologist to adhere to the Hurd safeguards, which he did not, her testimony was
excluded and summary judgment was granted to the defendant.
In the second case, an internationally reputed authority on forensic hypnosis was consulted
and the Hurd safeguards were employed in their entirety. Before hypnosis Mr. A. knew that
it would be to his financial advantage to remember that Mr. B.‟s car had entered an
intersection on a green light and stalled. In fact, Mr. A., who was a passenger in the back
seat of Mr. B.‟s car, would not have been able to see the green light if he were sitting up.
During hypnosis, Mr. A., who had been amnesic for the entire accident, recalled bending
forward to give something to Mr. B. and seeing the green light just as the car was about to
enter the intersection. Within days after the judge ruled that Mr. A.‟s testimony would be
admissible at trial, the case was settled and Mr. A. received a six-figure sum.
In a final example, Sprynczynatyk v. General Motors (1985), Rodney Sprynczynatyk, a 14-
year-old boy with a learner‟s permit, was driving his mother‟s car home when the car ran off
the road into a ditch. The mother, who was a passenger, became quadriplegic. At two
depositions taken by the insurance company, the boy stated that he did not try to apply the
brakes. The Sprynczynatyk family subsequently sued General Motors, claiming Rodney did
try to apply the brakes, which locked, and the car spun and went off the road. Therefore,
the brakes, not the boy, were to blame.
Before trial, Rodney was hypnotized by a psychologist, who videotaped the session. While
hypnotized, Rodney relived the accident and remembered that he applied the brakes, but
they had locked. The car then went out of control and spun off the road. The jurors saw the
videotaped hypnotic revivification of Rodney‟s experience and awarded the Sprynczynatyks
more than five million dollars. The case was overturned on appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court
for the Eighth District, which mandated evidentiary hearings at the District Court level on
the admissibility of hypnotically influenced testimony. In each case, a self-serving memory
To highlight some general problems with hypnotically influenced recall in civil litigation,
however, we will begin with litigation involving hypnosis and automobile accidents.
In the typical automobile accident involving hypnosis, an accident occurs and a victim is
either amnesic for critical events or has recalled and reported events that do not support his
lawsuit. Hypnosis is employed to “refresh” recall of the events. The hypnotist, who
sometimes observes the Hurd safeguards and sometimes does not, induces hypnosis, and
the subject remembers the disputed facts. In all the cases with which we are familiar, the
hypnotically influenced memory strongly favored the subject‟s position in the lawsuit. In
these cases, the difficulty of detecting simulation, the ability to lie during hypnosis, and
secondary gain attendant to a particular story contribute to the unreliability and self-serving
nature of posthypnotic testimony. Even if the subject is entirely honest, after hypnosis he is
likely to remember only what he wants to remember and will later testify to those memories
with great conviction. The key is that hypnosis justifies or at least legitimizes a change in
memory. Whether the subject is amnesic for critical details (Karlin, in press) or has
previously asserted an alternative, less self-serving story (e.g., Sprynczynatyk v. General
Motors, 1985), the old version of events is replaced with the new.
For example, in the two cases reported by Karlin (in press), both victims suffered
anterograde and retrograde amnesia for their automobile accident. In the first case, a
woman driving a three-wheel “all-terrain” vehicle lost control and went off the road.
Because the woman suffered moderate to severe brain damage, remained in a coma for
days, and lost a good deal of procedural and semantic memory along with autobiographical
information, it was clear that she did not permanently store any memories of the accident.
Several years later, a psychologist hypnotized and age regressed her. Not surprisingly, the
woman remembered her vehicle as uncontrollable through no fault of her own. The accident
was the fault of the vehicle, not the fault of her driving. As state law required the
psychologist to adhere to the Hurd safeguards, which he did not, her testimony was
excluded and summary judgment was granted to the defendant.
In the second case, an internationally reputed authority on forensic hypnosis was consulted
and the Hurd safeguards were employed in their entirety. Before hypnosis Mr. A. knew that
it would be to his financial advantage to remember that Mr. B.‟s car had entered an
intersection on a green light and stalled. In fact, Mr. A., who was a passenger in the back
seat of Mr. B.‟s car, would not have been able to see the green light if he were sitting up.
During hypnosis, Mr. A., who had been amnesic for the entire accident, recalled bending
forward to give something to Mr. B. and seeing the green light just as the car was about to
enter the intersection. Within days after the judge ruled that Mr. A.‟s testimony would be
admissible at trial, the case was settled and Mr. A. received a six-figure sum.
In a final example, Sprynczynatyk v. General Motors (1985), Rodney Sprynczynatyk, a 14-
year-old boy with a learner‟s permit, was driving his mother‟s car home when the car ran off
the road into a ditch. The mother, who was a passenger, became quadriplegic. At two
depositions taken by the insurance company, the boy stated that he did not try to apply the
brakes. The Sprynczynatyk family subsequently sued General Motors, claiming Rodney did
try to apply the brakes, which locked, and the car spun and went off the road. Therefore,
the brakes, not the boy, were to blame.
Before trial, Rodney was hypnotized by a psychologist, who videotaped the session. While
hypnotized, Rodney relived the accident and remembered that he applied the brakes, but
they had locked. The car then went out of control and spun off the road. The jurors saw the
videotaped hypnotic revivification of Rodney‟s experience and awarded the Sprynczynatyks
more than five million dollars. The case was overturned on appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court
for the Eighth District, which mandated evidentiary hearings at the District Court level on
the admissibility of hypnotically influenced testimony. In each case, a self-serving memory
