By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Magic performers Penn & Teller have filed a U.S. Supreme Court brief in support of death row inmate Charles Don Flores. The brief highlights that key evidence used to convict Flores was tainted by a police officer’s use of “investigative hypnosis” on a witness. This discredited technique, which falsely purports memory to be a recording device, led the witness to identify Flores despite initial descriptions not matching him. Penn Jillette, an expert in misdirection, argues that such questionable practices mirror his own stagecraft and should invalidate the evidence.
Read the original article here
The duo known for their magic and skepticism, Penn & Teller, have brought a rather unconventional but crucial warning to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the pervasive issue of “junk science.” Their involvement stems from a legal brief concerning a death row inmate convicted based on testimony derived from investigative hypnosis, a practice they find deeply problematic and a stark illustration of the dangers of unreliable evidence infiltrating the judicial system.
The core of Penn & Teller’s concern lies in how subjective and malleable human memory can be, especially when subjected to suggestive interrogation techniques, as exemplified by the case of Richard Flores. In this particular instance, a key witness’s identification of Flores dramatically shifted after she underwent hypnosis. Initially, her description did not match Flores, who is Hispanic with short hair, but rather a white man with long hair who had already confessed to the crime.
The notion that memory functions like a video recording, easily rewound and replayed, is a myth that Penn finds particularly exasperating. He argues that the brain is not a passive recording device, and the idea that hypnosis can simply “summon a memory” by pressing a mental “recorder” is a gross oversimplification that can lead to the implantation of false recollections. This is precisely what appears to have happened in the Flores case, where a hypnotized witness, influenced by leading questions about hair length and style, eventually identified a suspect who bore little resemblance to her initial description.
The legal brief highlights the problematic nature of this hypnotic session, where an officer, inexperienced in hypnosis, guided the witness through a process designed to elicit a specific outcome. Suggestive questions like “Is his hair short? Is it shaved? Is it neatly cut?” steered the witness towards a description that eventually fit Flores, despite initial inconsistencies. This manipulation of memory, coupled with the passage of time and the witness’s later awareness of Flores’s name, ultimately led to a conviction, even with the trial judge expressing reservations about the reliability of the testimony due to these factors.
Penn & Teller’s intervention underscores a broader concern about the creeping influence of pseudoscience in legal proceedings. They have long been vocal critics of the uncritical acceptance of dubious claims, often satirizing them on their former Showtime series, “Bullshit!”. While some of their past episodes tackled controversial topics like global warming denial and the debate around secondhand smoke, their current focus on investigative hypnosis in this Supreme Court brief demonstrates a commitment to applying their critical thinking to real-world justice issues.
The duo’s argument implicitly addresses the danger of “your opinion is as good as any expert” mentality when it comes to scientific and legal matters. The input reveals a concerning trend where individuals dismiss established scientific consensus, opting instead for easily digestible misinformation found through cursory online searches or forwarded emails. This cavalier attitude towards evidence and expertise poses a significant threat when it intersects with the legal system, as decisions about a person’s liberty, or even life, can be swayed by unreliable or fabricated information.
The implication that some parties might benefit from the use of junk science to influence judicial decisions is also a chilling aspect of the input. The mention of judges receiving perks like free RVs and vacations raises questions about potential conflicts of interest and the susceptibility of the system to undue influence, further amplifying the need for robust scientific integrity in courtrooms.
Ultimately, Penn & Teller’s warning to the Supreme Court is not just about a single case; it’s a call to safeguard the integrity of justice by rejecting “junk science” in all its forms. It’s about ensuring that legal outcomes are based on verifiable facts and sound scientific principles, rather than flawed methodologies or manipulated memories, protecting individuals from wrongful convictions and upholding the fundamental principles of a fair trial. Their involvement, though unconventional, highlights the urgent need for critical scrutiny of evidence presented in courtrooms, especially when it relies on techniques that have been widely discredited by the scientific community.