COURT DECISIONS ABOUT RECOVERED MEMORY THERAPY
Prior to 1995, many accused persons were convicted of childhood sexual abuse
on the basis of recovered memories alone. Such testimony is very convincing,
because the accuser is truthfully describing her/his recollections exactly
as they remember them to be.
During 1995, the tide began to turn. A number of major court decisions were
handed down which declared that recovered memories have no validity unless
supported by independent evidence:
- New Hampshire 1995-MAY-23; State v. Joel Hungerford
# 94-45-7; State v. John Morahan # 93-1734-6
- Michigan 1995-JUL-5; Lemmerman v. Fealk; Williford v. Bieske
- California 1995-OCT-11; Engstrom v. Engstron, #VC016157
- North Carolina 1996-JAN-22; Barrett v Hyldburg
# 94-CV5-0795
- Tennessee 1996-FEB-15 Hunter v. Brown # 03A01-9504-CV00127
- Pennsylvania 1996-FEB-21 Dalrymple v. Brown # J.A52010/1995
- Texas 1996-MAR-14; Vesecky v. Vesecky # 94-0856
- Maryland 1996-MAY-5 Doe, roe v. Maskell, et. al,
#94-236030-1/CL185155-6
A few excerpts from some of the above court decisions are:
- Texas, 1996-MAR: The Texas Supreme Court handed down a decision which
disallowed evidence derived from recovered memory therapy:
"In sum, the literature on repression and recovered memory syndrome
establishes that fundamental theoretical and practical issues remain
to be resolved. These issues include the extent to which
experimental psychological theories of amnesia apply to
psychotherapy, the effect of repression on memory, the effect of
screening devices in recall, the effect of suggestibility, the
difference between forensic and therapeutic truth, and the extent to
which memory restoration techniques lead to credible memories or
confabulations. Opinions in this area simply cannot meet the
'objective verifiability' element for extending the discovery rule."
- California, 1995-OCT: The California Superior Court excluded repressed
memory testimony. He found that "the phenomenon of 'memory repressions'
is not generally accepted as valid and reliable by a respectable majority of
the pertinent scientific community and that the techniques and procedures
utilized in the retrieval process have not gained general acceptance in the
field of psychology or psychiatry."
Return to the RMT page;