Rock v. Arkansas

Supreme Court of United States
483 U.S. 44 (1987)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state's per se rule excluding all hypnotically refreshed testimony from a criminal defendant infringes upon the defendant's fundamental constitutional right to testify on their own behalf. While this right is not absolute, any restrictions must be necessary to serve a legitimate state interest and cannot be arbitrary or disproportionate.

Facts:

Vickie Lorene Rock and her husband, Frank Rock, were involved in a dispute over moving from their apartment.
During a fight on July 2, 1983, Frank prevented Vickie from eating or leaving the apartment, leading to a physical struggle.
During the struggle, a gun discharged, and Frank was fatally shot in the chest.
Vickie could not remember the precise details of the shooting, so her attorney arranged for her to undergo hypnosis with a licensed neuropsychologist to refresh her memory.
After the hypnosis sessions, Vickie was able to recall that her finger was not on the trigger and that the gun discharged accidentally when her husband grabbed her arm.
This refreshed memory prompted her attorney to have the weapon examined by a gun expert.
The expert discovered that the handgun was defective and prone to fire when hit or dropped, even without the trigger being pulled.

Procedural Posture:

Vickie Lorene Rock was charged with manslaughter in an Arkansas state trial court.
The prosecution filed a pre-trial motion to exclude Rock's testimony regarding any memories formed after she underwent hypnosis.
The trial court granted the motion, issuing an order limiting Rock’s testimony to matters she remembered and stated prior to hypnosis.
Following a trial where her testimony was strictly limited, a jury convicted Rock of manslaughter.
Rock (as appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, arguing the limitation on her testimony violated her constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas (the state's highest court) affirmed the conviction, upholding the per se exclusion of hypnotically refreshed testimony as a valid evidentiary rule.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted Rock's petition for a writ of certiorari.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Arkansas's evidentiary rule, which creates a per se ban on the admission of a criminal defendant's hypnotically refreshed testimony, violate the defendant's constitutional right to testify on their own behalf?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Blackmun

Yes. Arkansas's per se rule excluding all post-hypnosis testimony from a criminal defendant impermissibly infringes on the right to testify. The right of a criminal defendant to testify is a fundamental constitutional right, derived from the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Sixth Amendment's Compulsory Process Clause, and as a corollary to the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Although this right is not absolute and can be accommodated to serve other legitimate interests, restrictions on it may not be arbitrary or disproportionate. Arkansas's rule is arbitrary because it operates as a wholesale exclusion without any individualized inquiry into the reliability of the testimony in a particular case. While hypnosis presents risks of unreliability, such as suggestibility and confabulation, these risks can be mitigated by procedural safeguards and evaluated by traditional means like cross-examination, expert testimony, and corroborating evidence. A complete ban is disproportionate to the state's interest in barring unreliable evidence, as it prevents a defendant from presenting her own version of events, even when, as here, there is independent evidence corroborating the hypnotically refreshed memories.

Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist

No. Arkansas's per se rule excluding a defendant's hypnotically refreshed testimony does not violate the constitution. The Court has long recognized that the right to present evidence is subject to reasonable restrictions, and states are traditionally accorded deference in establishing their own criminal trial rules to ensure fairness and reliability. The majority concedes that hypnotically induced testimony is inherently unreliable due to risks of suggestion, confabulation, and memory hardening, which undermines effective cross-examination. Given this scientific uncertainty and the documented dangers, a state's decision to enact a categorical ban is a permissible and reasonable response, not an arbitrary one. The Constitution does not require every trial judge in every case to conduct a novel scientific assessment of a controversial evidentiary matter.

Analysis:

This case firmly establishes a criminal defendant's right to testify as a fundamental constitutional right, distinct from the right to call other witnesses. The decision curtails the ability of states to create broad, per se evidentiary rules that categorically exclude a defendant's testimony. By invalidating Arkansas's absolute ban on hypnotically refreshed testimony, the Court mandates a more nuanced, case-by-case approach where trial courts must weigh the potential reliability of the testimony against the state's legitimate interest in excluding untrustworthy evidence. This ruling forces courts to engage with the specific facts and procedural safeguards of each case, rather than relying on a blanket prohibition, thereby impacting state evidence rules nationwide concerning novel scientific or psychological techniques.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Rock v. Arkansas (1987)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature