Legal Opinion
Burral v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided February 12, 1999No. 10, Sept. Term, 1998PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILNER, Judge.
The issue in this appeal concerns the admissibility of hypnotically-enhanced testimony. In State v. Collins, 296 Md. 670, 464 A.2d 1028 (1983), we concluded that such testimony did not meet the test of reliability adopted by this Court in Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374, 391 A.2d 364 (1978) and was, for that reason, inadmissible. We held that testimony consistent with statements made by a witness prior to undergoing hypnosis was admissible, but not testimony based on recollections formed during or after the hypnosis. The exclusion of hypnotically-enhanced testimony was stated in the…
2Cases cited76 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- Washington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- United States v. HornDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2002
- Rochkind v. StevensonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
- Wilder v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2010
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2006
- Simms v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2010
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.