Abstract
Rock v. Arkansas is the first United States Supreme Court decision that addresses the conflict between a criminal defendant's right to testify in his or her own behalf and a state's right to impose a restrictive rule of evidence barring hypnotically refreshed testimony. The present critique describes the operative facts in Rock v. Arkansas and the majority and minority decisions. It also highlights some of the psychological and legal issues involved and speculates on what Rock v. Arkansas may portend for the broader issue of the admissibility of hypnotically refreshed testimony in general.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
