Com. v. Kater
| Decision Date | 11 April 1985 |
| Citation | 476 N.E.2d 593,394 Mass. 531 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. James M. KATER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Jonathan Shapiro, Boston, Patricia Garin, Somerville, with him, for defendant.
Phillip L. Weiner, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and WILKINS, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.
Over two years ago, we reversed James M. Kater's convictions for murder in the first degree and kidnapping because the introduction at his trial of hypnotically aided testimony--testimony first available from a witness after hypnosis--created a substantial risk that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Commonwealth v. Kater, 388 Mass. 519, 521, 534, 447 N.E.2d 1190 (1983) (Kater I ). We did not order the indictments dismissed. Instead, because we concluded that during the trial the Commonwealth had introduced sufficient evidence, other than the hypnotically aided testimony, to warrant guilty verdicts, we ordered a new trial. Id. at 521, 447 N.E.2d 1190. We announced that the hypnotized witnesses may testify at a retrial only as to their memory of events known to them prior to hypnosis. Id. at 534, 447 N.E.2d 1190. Furthermore, we authorized the defendant to present evidence "bearing on the effect of hypnosis on a particular witness and on witnesses in general" and evidence "tending to show that each hypnotic session, and any attempted hypnotic session, was conducted in a manner likely to affect both a witness's present memory of events and a witness's degree of confidence in his or her memory," and we authorized the Commonwealth to present evidence to the contrary. Id. at 535, 447 N.E.2d 1190. Although we recognized that that solution was not entirely satisfactory because "[i]t will not be easy for lay witnesses to limit themselves to their prehypnotic memory," we declined to adopt a solution that would have barred the formerly hypnotized witness from testifying at the retrial or one that would have allowed those witnesses to give hypnotically aided testimony. Id.
In November, 1983, in anticipation of retrial, Kater filed in the Superior Court a motion to suppress the testimony of all formerly hypnotized witnesses, and, in February, 1984, a judge commenced a hearing to determine what part, if any, of those witnesses' testimony he would allow at the retrial. Helena McCoy, who was one of the hypnotized witnesses, testified at that hearing, as did a police officer and two hypnosis experts.
After having participated in the hearing to that point, the Commonwealth, describing the hearing as "an unnecessary step," filed a motion to terminate it. The judge agreed, allowed the Commonwealth's motion to terminate the hearing, and denied Kater's motion to suppress. The judge concluded that it was not his function "to determine what is, and is not, a witness's present memory of events known prior to hypnosis." Instead, the judge declared that he would instruct the hypnotized witnesses to limit their testimony to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Romero
...testify to matters recalled prior to hypnosis), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1022, 106 S.Ct. 575, 88 L.Ed.2d 558 (1985); Commonwealth v. Kater, 394 Mass. 531, 476 N.E.2d 593 (1985) (same result); State v. Nixon, 421 Mich. 79, 364 N.W.2d 593 (1984) (same result; noting that witness' deposition cou......
-
Commonwealth v. Niemic, SJC-12436
......See Commonwealth v. Kater , 388 Mass. 519, 534, 447 N.E.2d 1190 (1983), S . C ., 394 Mass. 531, 476 N.E.2d 593 (1985), 409 Mass. 433, 567 N.E.2d 885 (1991), 412 Mass. 800, ...28 As he had in Niemic I , "[t]oward the end of his argument the prosecutor focused on the [Com. v. ] Cunneen , [389 Mass. 216, 449 N.E.2d 658 (1983) ] factors that must be considered on the question of extreme atrocity or cruelty." Niemic I , ......
-
Com. v. Jones
......Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15, 26, 641 N.E.2d 1342 [1994] ). We have held that testimony enhanced by hypnosis lacks reliability and is inadmissible against a criminal defendant. See Commonwealth v. Kater, 388 Mass. 519, 527 -528, 447 N.E.2d 1190 (1983), S.C., 394 Mass. 531, 476 N.E.2d 593 (1985), 409 Mass. 433, 567 N.E.2d 885 (1991), 412 Mass. 800, 592 N.E.2d 1328 (1992). There are numerous statutory (see, e.g., G.L. c. 233, §§ 20, 20A, 20B, 20J, 21B [1994 ed.] and G.L. c. 112, § 135A [1994 ......
-
Kater v. Maloney
...court on remand to hold a hearing and to admit only such testimony as was based on pre-hypnotic memories. Commonwealth v. Kater (Kater II), 394 Mass. 531, 476 N.E.2d 593 (1985). After two more trials ended inconclusively,1 Kater was tried for a fourth time.2 Kater was convicted after his fo......