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

Patry, Marc W.; Stinson, Veronica; Smith, Steven M.

doi:10.1037/a0013767

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

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%

The criminal justice system's considerations of so-called near-virtual autopsies: the East Midlands experience

Jeffery¹,

Raj

Morgan

et al. 2011

J Clin Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here, the authors show that PMCT is good at providing accurate causes of death and that the interpretation of cases is not significantly altered by the absence of histology. The authors show that in straightforward trauma deaths such as road traffic incidents, there exists the potential for the replacement of the invasive PM by PMCT examination. However, as yet, PMCT cannot provide all of the information that is expected by the criminal justice system in complex forensic cases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The criminal justice system's considerations of so-called near-virtual autopsies: the East Midlands experience

Jeffery¹,

Raj

Morgan

et al. 2011

J Clin Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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%

Using the “Mr. Big” technique to elicit confessions: Successful innovation or dangerous development in the Canadian legal system?

Smith¹,

Stinson²,

Patry³

2009

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Canada's legal system recognizes that police interrogation procedures may contribute to false confessions, and has provided safeguards designed to protect the rights of the accused and reduce the likelihood of these errors. Police in Canada are using a complex noncustodial interrogation procedure called the "Mr. Big" technique, to elicit confessions for recalcitrant suspects. Remarkably, this undercover (in that suspects do not know they are speaking to law enforcement officers) interrogation technique boasts a 75% confession rate and a 95% conviction rate when used (Gardner, 2004). However, it is possible that suspects in these situations may experience undue pressure to confess falsely. The purpose of this paper is fourfold:(1) to explore the nature of the Mr. Big technique; (2) summarize some recent Canadian legal cases relevant to confession evidence (e.g., R. v. Oickle, 2000;R. v. Mentuck, 2000); (3) examine Canadian law and police practices in the context of different jurisdictions around the world; and, (4) discuss the scientific evidence relevant to the Mr. Big procedure. We conclude the paper by discussing recommendations for current and future police practice, directions for future research, and the ways in which psychological research could inform legal policy and procedures in the future.

show abstract

Hypnosis and Memory in the Forensic Context

Lynn

Malaktaris

Barnes

et al. 2013

Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judicial opinions about the legal admissibility of hypnosis are mixed, although the majority of states have ruled that hypnotically elicited recall is per se inadmissible. Skepticism about hypnosis has arisen from the facts that hypnosis: (i) increases the sheer volume of recall, with a trade‐off of inaccurate memories that often more than negates any increase in accurate memories; (ii) increases recall confidence independent of recall accuracy. Although research generally supports per se admissibility rulings, it is not firmly established that hypnosis increases resistance to cross‐examination, and misleading questions can compromise recall to an extent equal to or greater than hypnosis.

show abstract

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

Cited by 4 publications

References 53 publications

The criminal justice system's considerations of so-called near-virtual autopsies: the East Midlands experience

The criminal justice system's considerations of so-called near-virtual autopsies: the East Midlands experience

Using the “Mr. Big” technique to elicit confessions: Successful innovation or dangerous development in the Canadian legal system?

Hypnosis and Memory in the Forensic Context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About