The Unreliability of Testimony From a Witness With Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD): Why Courts Must Acknowledge the Connection Between Hypnosis and MPD and Adopt a "Per Se" Rule of Exclusion for MPD Testimony

Abstract

This Article maintains that a Multiple's testimony is a particularly unreliable form of hypnosis testimony, and therefore should be excluded per se. Part II examines the connection between MPD and hypnosis. Part III examines the courts' current approaches to hypnosis testimony. Part IV explains that a Multiple's testimony is actually testimony given while under hypnosis. Part V examines the courts' current treatment of MPD testimony, illustrating the legal system's refusal to treat MPD testimony as a form of hypnosis evidence. Part VI critiques the courts' current treatment of MPD testimony. Part VII explains why courts should rule that a Multiple's testimony is a particularly unreliable form of hypnosis testimony which fails to meet the Frye/Daubert tests for scientific evidence, and why the testimony is always more prejudicial than probative. Part VIII provides recommendations to practitioners and courts regarding how to proceed when confronted with a Multiple. Part IX concludes that MPD testimony should be excluded per se.