U.S. Supreme Court declines to take up Texas death row case involving police hypnosis

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a Texas death row inmate who argued that hypnosis helped convict him of murder. The decision was a blow to inmate Charles Don Flores, who was sentenced to death for the murder of Farmers Branch resident Elizabeth “Betty” Black in 1998. It was also a setback for critics of the use of hypnosis by Texas law enforcement officers, who had hoped the Supreme Court would rule that investigative hypnosis is junk science that has no place in U.S. courts Flores’ lawyer, Gretchen Sween, said she will continue to fight for her client’s release from prison, but she wished the high court had taken a look at how hypnosis helped put him there. “I do think one of the positive things that has come out of this litigation is that Charles’ case has unsettled a lot of people. There is a lack of awareness that this is something the police do,” Sween said Monday.

Investigative hypnosis is a technique used by police attempting to guide witnesses or victims into a trance so they might better recall details of a crime. A Dallas Morning News investigative series published last year revealed Texas has become the country’s premier destination for police hypnosis — both in training and practice — even though the scientific consensus is that the practice can warp memories. While many other states ban the testimony of people who have been hypnotized, or bar the introduction of evidence elicited during hypnosis sessions, law enforcement officers in Texas have used hypnosis to investigate hundreds of crimes over the years, sending dozens to prison — and some to their deaths. Flores challenged his conviction based on the fact that police tried to use hypnosis to refresh the memory of a witness who saw two men enter Black’s home on the morning of the crime. The justices denied his petition for review without comment Monday. Sween said this decision meant the court decided not to take up the case; it did not make any judgment on the merits of the case or the challenge against investigative hypnosis. She will now return to state court and continue fighting to overturn Flores’ conviction on other grounds. While declining to provide specific details about her upcoming argument, Sween said she has recently learned additional details about the prosecution that raised questions about her client’s conviction.