Bundy v. Florida

Background

The case involves Theodore Bundy and his conviction and death sentence in Florida for the abduction and killing of Kimberly Leach. The only eyewitness to the abduction was Clarence Anderson, who came forward months later and, after two hypnosis sessions requested by a prosecutor, identified Bundy. Bundy moved to suppress Anderson's testimony; the trial court denied that motion and the testimony was described as the crucial link in the State's case.

Reasoning

The central question presented to the Justices was whether the Court should review the Florida Supreme Court's conclusion that any constitutional error from the hypnotically refreshed testimony was harmless and did not affect the verdict. Several experts had testified that hypnosis can create false or enhanced memories and make it hard to tell what was remembered before hypnosis. The Florida court said hypnotically refreshed testimony would be inadmissible going forward but nonetheless upheld Bundy's conviction as not having been affected by the tainted evidence. The Supreme Court declined to take the case, so it did not resolve the federal constitutional claims.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court denied review, Bundy's conviction and death sentence remain in place and the Florida court's harmless-error determination stands for now. The denial leaves open serious questions about the reliability and admissibility of testimony refreshed by hypnosis. The Court expressly did not decide whether hypnotically refreshed testimony violates the federal right to fair process or the right to effective cross-examination.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices dissented from the denial. Justice Brennan said he would vacate the death sentence on broader Eighth Amendment grounds. Justice Marshall would have granted review, emphasizing that the tainted testimony likely contributed to the conviction and that the harmless-error review was flawed.