Abstract
Since its heyday in the 1970s and 1980s, hypnosis as an investigative procedure has declined in popularity such that many experts now consider it to be more a liability than a useful forensic tool. Indeed, in the US, a majority of the states follow a per se exclusion rule, prohibiting any memories retrieved during or after hypnosis from being introduced into evidence. In this paper, factors contributing to the demise of investigative hypnosis are reβexamined. It is concluded that a per se exclusion rule is overly inclusive, but it is advisable for investigators to avoid using hypnosis when other, less contentious alternatives, such as the cognitive interview, are available. Nevertheless, it often goes unrecognised that a more positive legacy of investigative hypnosis is very present in modern investigative interviewing best practice; moreover, there may still be procedures employed in hypnotic interviewing that have yet to be exploited. For example, recent research indicates that, when divorced from the context of hypnosis, brief techniques such as focused breathing, and eye closure, can enhance memory. As memory enhancement with these techniques is achieved without the increase in false positive errors familiar to more traditional hypnosis techniques, evidence from such procedures should be acceptable to the courts. The potential role of hypnosis as a tool to reverse the effects of misinformation is also considered. Copyright Β© 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.