Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1998, page 51
2) As the Supreme Court recently made clear, a trial court‟s determination to admit or exclude
proposed testimony under Daubert will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court abused its
discretion. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 118 S.Ct. 512 (1997).
3) In contrast, the admissibility of expert testimony would be directly at issue, assuming hypnotically
refreshed testimony were ruled admissible, if a person sought to testify concerning the effect of
hypnosis on such testimony.
************
Gilbert C. Hoover, IV, Esq. is an associate in the litigation department of Parker, Chapin,
Flattau &Klimpl, LLP
This article is an electronic version of an article originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1998, Volume 15,
Number 1, pages 77-82. 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.
2) As the Supreme Court recently made clear, a trial court‟s determination to admit or exclude
proposed testimony under Daubert will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court abused its
discretion. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 118 S.Ct. 512 (1997).
3) In contrast, the admissibility of expert testimony would be directly at issue, assuming hypnotically
refreshed testimony were ruled admissible, if a person sought to testify concerning the effect of
hypnosis on such testimony.
************
Gilbert C. Hoover, IV, Esq. is an associate in the litigation department of Parker, Chapin,
Flattau &Klimpl, LLP
This article is an electronic version of an article originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1998, Volume 15,
Number 1, pages 77-82. 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.
