Ramona

Ramona v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 658·57 Cal. App. 4th 107·66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 766·97 D.A.R. 10·97 Daily Journal DAR 10772
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 19, 1997B111565California7,956 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ortega, J.

Plaintiff Holly Ramona filed a childhood sexual abuse lawsuit against her father, Gary Ramona, alleging she had completely repressed the abuse from her conscious memory until after she underwent psychotherapy as an adult. Apart from what Holly would testify to at trial, there is no other substantial evidence to support her claims of abuse. Gary sought summary judgment, contending Holly should be barred from testifying because her memory regarding the alleged incidents was tainted by the therapeutic administration of sodium amytal. Although Holly presently believes she was molested, the record is undisputed she was uncertain in her belief before being interviewed while under the influence of sodium amytal and assured by her therapist she had not lied during the interview.

Relying upon the Kelly test, Gary argued the lack of general acceptance in the scientific community of the reliability of repressed memories recalled only after commencing psychotherapy and undergoing a sodium amytal interview should bar Holly’s testimony. The trial court denied summary judgment, finding the Kelly test inapplicable to sodium amytal cases, which it distinguished from hypnosis cases. Gary…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.