A State Of Trance Year Mix 2004

[Demetrius Dade]

ASOTis broadcast as a 2-hour livestream with some stations re-airing the entire stream. However, several of its radio affiliates omit the second hour while other stations format the show into two 58-minute segments to make time for local advertising and station branding.

The show usually takes the format of a two-hour mix showcasing the latest releases in trance music (uplifting trance, vocal trance, and progressive trance), with both promotional and commercial releases being presented.

The show has its own website which enables fans to converse in chat rooms and forums while listening to the broadcast. The show is celebrated live each year in different locations around the globe with a lineup consisting of many trance artists.[1]

Episode 182 was the last to air on ID&T Radio, as the show was canceled unexpectedly after the station decided to change its music policy. Episode 183 was aired a month later, through the Internet radio station ETN.fm. To better adapt to an international audience, Armin went from presenting in Dutch to presenting in English.

Since the 500th episode, 'A State of Trance's' annual episodic celebrations have effectively replaced Trance Energy (later simply called Energy, focusing on electro house instead of trance) as the main trance event in the Netherlands, where every year the biggest of these celebrations takes place.

From episode 800 Part 2, the show began to broadcast in video through YouTube from a new studio in Amsterdam. In addition, the Dutch DJ and producer Ruben de Ronde began to co-host the program with Armin van Buuren.

Starting episode 922, various DJs have been invited to mix during the second hour of the show. During this hour, the episode is usually hosted by Ruben de Ronde or Ferry Corsten, with Armin van Buuren only presenting the first hour of the show.

Although the program usually takes the format of a mixture of two hours in which the latest musical developments are presented, special episodes are also made: broadcasts of recorded sessions, the programs in which the Tune of the Year is chosen, the Year Mix, the anniversary editions, as well as various specials.

Since the 250th episode, and every subsequent 50th episode of the show, there are some celebrations that include guest trance DJs that play live. Since the 400th episode, these celebrations have often taken place in different countries.

In March 2011, during the Ultra Music Festival, A State of Trance was given its own stage as part of its A State of Trance 500 Tour. Since Ultra 2011, A State of Trance has had its own arena at Ultra and the Electric Daisy Carnival in Las Vegas.

Since the 500th episode, A State of Trance's annual episodic celebrations have effectively replaced Trance Energy (later simply called Energy, focusing on electro house instead of trance) as the main trance event in the Netherlands, where every year the biggest of these celebrations takes place.

Armin van Buuren annually records so-called Year Mixes that comprises the crme de la crme of trance music from the previous year. Besides being broadcast and streamed, these are available in double mix CD format:

We today consider for the first time the use in aid of a criminal prosecution of testimony adduced through hypnosis. For the reasons described below, we hold that the hypnotist may not testify as to facts constituting the crime told him by the victim during a hypnotic session, nor may he offer an expert opinion that the victim is telling the truth. Because the hypnotically refreshed memory of the victim is susceptible of having been "contaminated" during the hypnotic session, her testimony becomes admissible only after certain safeguards set forth below have been complied with.

The Defendant has been indicted, tried and convicted of unnatural intercourse with M.P.[1], an eight-year-old girl, in violation of Miss. Code Ann. 97-29-59 (1972). The offense allegedly occurred on January 26, 1981. In view of the disposition we make, no useful purpose would be served by recounting the details of the criminal act charged in this case. Suffice it to say that, for the reasons articulated below, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

The Defendant has been convicted on the testimony of M.P., a young girl whose birthday is September 5, 1972. There is no independent, objective verification of the truth of the charges. The defendant has vehemently denied any form of sexual contact with M.P. In this context, the fact and opinion testimony of the hypnotist, Dr. Joseph Tramontana, most certainly weighed heavily in the jury's mind in favor of conviction.

Beyond that, the defendant is not the only person M.P. ever accused of forcing her to commit unnatural sex acts. M.P. has charged at least two other male persons with doing this sort of thing to her. M.P.'s mother testified that her daughter was three years old when she first made such accusations. On occasions prior to January 26, 1981, she had accused the defendant.

Moreover, there is the suggestion in the record that M.P. has been the object of a longstanding custody dispute between her mother and her grandparents. M.P.'s mother is the person who reported the instant offense to law enforcement authorities. The record suggests, however, that her motivation may not have been bringing the defendant to justice as much as it may have been to keep M.P.'s grandparents and the local welfare department from challenging the mother's fitness to maintain custody of M.P. and her brother.

We take a backseat to no one in our condemnation of the sort of crime here charged. It offends the sensibilities of decent people. Perpetrators should be vigorously prosecuted. Yet, because this sort of crime is so offensive and because of the other factors mentioned above, we are sensitive to the potential for a miscarriage of justice. This is particularly so where the testimony of the eight year old prosecutrix is arguably the product of a hypnotically refreshed memory corroborated only by the dubious and inadmissible hearsay and opinion testimony of a hypnotist.

Hypnosis has been around for a long time. Its use in judicial proceedings has been debated in other jurisdictions for nigh unto a century. See Ladd, Legal Aspects of Hypnotism, 11 Yale L.J. 173 (1902). Still, the matter has never been considered in the prior decisions of this Court.[2]

We are told that today hypnosis is a valuable aid to law enforcement. In that during a hypnotic experience many persons are capable of correct recall of the details of past events otherwise forgotten, law enforcement employs hypnosis in investigative work and now at trial. See Quarles, Hypnosis and the Law of Evidence: Testimony from the Hypnotically-Refreshed Memory, 51 Miss.L.J. 743 (1981). We further understand that hypnosis has potential as a tool of the defense in criminal cases, see Warriner, The Use of Hypnosis in the Defense of Criminal Cases, 27 Int'l Journ. of Cl. and Exp. Hypnosis, No. 4 at 417 (1979), although to our knowledge it has not been so used in this state.

This Court is committed to the proposition that all credible evidence that will assist the jury in its fact-finding task ought, if put in proper form, be admissible. Our prejudice favors inclusion, not exclusion, for we perceive such prejudice to be *819 consistent with the correct administration of justice in this state. We do not fear the new. That a newly developed type of evidence has never been used before in our courts hardly dictates exclusion.

On the other hand, our oaths require vigilance against forms of evidence infected with the potential for mischief and injustice. Even so, our prejudice favors admissibility under guidelines and safeguards realistically designed to ensure reliability. We eschew per se inadmissibility rules wherever possible. We bring this general frame of mind to our consideration of the use in this prosecution of evidence adduced via hypnosis.

At the outset, the State urges that we not consider any of the hypnosis issues in this case for procedural reasons. The State insists that these points were not properly preserved in the trial court by timely specific objections.

At trial defense counsel objected to the testimony of Dr. Tramontana on dual grounds: That he conducted his hypnotic session with M.P. without her mother's permission and, second, that he did not record the hypnotic session. The present grounds for objection and suggestion of error include, in addition, hearsay, improper bolstering of the prosecutrix' testimony, plus due process.

It is certainly true that this and every other appellate court we know anything about maintains and enforces a rule requiring that, before errors may be considered on appeal, generally they must be "preserved" at trial. See Stringer v. State, 279 So. 2d 156, 157-159 (Miss. 1973). Generally, this means that the matter must be presented to the trial court in such a form that the trial judge has the opportunity to consider it with full knowledge of the respective contentions of the parties. On the other hand, where an objection is made and where the basis therefor is obvious from the context, little of value is accomplished by insistence upon a technically correct objection. See Loeffler v. State, 396 So. 2d 18 (Miss. 1981). This is certainly true with so much of Dr. Tramontana's testimony as constitutes garden variety hearsay or improper blostering of the prosecutrix' testimony.

First, as explained above, the hypnosis-related evidence in this case is at the core of the trial. The justice of the proceedings below in a very real sense turns upon a correct treatment of the hypnosis-related issues.

Second, we are aware that hypnotic techniques are being used by law enforcement officials in this state and have been in such use for several years.[3] The Attorney General's office released an equivocal opinion on the subject on March 7, 1980. Both law enforcement and the bar need guidance from this Court on this subject. They need that guidance now.

3a8082e126