2009
DOI: 10.1037/a0013767
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Supreme Court of Canada addresses admissibility of posthypnosis witness evidence: R. v. Trochym (2007).

Abstract: In February of 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its ruling in R. v. Trochym, a case in which the Court addressed the admissibility of posthypnosis witness testimony. The holding by a majority of five Justices establishes a presumption of inadmissibility for posthypnosis evidence that is very unlikely to be overcome. Although not a clear bar against this form of testimony, this ruling makes it extraordinarily difficult for such testimony to be admitted in the future. The authors discuss the case, the re… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When posthypnosis evidence was sought to be adduced, the Canadian Supreme Court laid down a series of tests in a case9:Can the technique be tested and has it been?Has it been subjected to peer review and publication?What is the known or potential rate of error?Has it been generally accepted?…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When posthypnosis evidence was sought to be adduced, the Canadian Supreme Court laid down a series of tests in a case9:Can the technique be tested and has it been?Has it been subjected to peer review and publication?What is the known or potential rate of error?Has it been generally accepted?…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Eyewitness research is gradually permeating police policy and practice by a variety of routes, including official inquiries (e.g., Manitoba, 2002), policy working groups (e.g., the U.S. Department of Justice Guide for Eyewitness Evidence; see Wells et al, 2000), as well as expert testimony in criminal proceedings (S. Fulero, personal communication, 2009). It seems clear that policy shifts become possible when psychology has amassed compelling evidence suggesting the importance of those changes (see Patry, Stinson, & Smith, 2009, for a discussion). We feel strongly that research efforts could help understand the consequences of the Mr. Big technique relevant to false confessions, and thus influence policy and practice.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%