Case Citation
Legal Case Name

ROCK v. ARKANSAS Case Brief

Supreme Court of United States • 1987

Create New Course

Create a new course to organize your saved briefs

Enter the name of the course (e.g., Constitutional Law)

Enter the term when you're taking this course (e.g., Spring 2025)

483 U.S. 44 107 S.Ct. 2704 97 L.Ed.2d 37

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Try Free for 14 Days

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A state’s per se rule barring a criminal defendant from giving hypnotically refreshed testimony was found unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held this blanket ban arbitrarily infringes on the defendant’s fundamental right to testify, which is guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Legal Significance: This case establishes that a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to testify is a fundamental right. State evidentiary rules, even those aimed at ensuring reliability, cannot be so arbitrary or disproportionate as to create a per se ban on the defendant’s own testimony without a case-specific reliability assessment.

ROCK v. ARKANSAS Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Petitioner Vickie Rock was charged with manslaughter for shooting her husband. Unable to recall the precise details of the incident, she underwent hypnosis with a licensed neuropsychologist to refresh her memory. After the sessions, she recalled that the gun was defective and had discharged accidentally when her husband grabbed her arm during a struggle; she remembered not having her finger on the trigger. An expert examination of the weapon corroborated this, revealing it was prone to misfire. The State of Arkansas had a per se evidentiary rule that prohibited the admission of any hypnotically refreshed testimony. Citing this rule, the trial court limited Rock’s testimony to only what she could prove she remembered before hypnosis, effectively preventing her from presenting her full account of the shooting to the jury. The jury convicted her. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, upholding the state’s per se rule as a valid measure against unreliable evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the constitutionality of this rule.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a state’s per se rule excluding all hypnotically refreshed testimony from a criminal defendant unconstitutionally infringe upon the defendant’s fundamental right to testify on their own behalf?

Yes. A state’s per se rule excluding all of a criminal defendant’s Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does a state’s per se rule excluding all hypnotically refreshed testimony from a criminal defendant unconstitutionally infringe upon the defendant’s fundamental right to testify on their own behalf?

Conclusion

Rock v. Arkansas solidifies the defendant's right to testify as a fundamental Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure do

Legal Rule

A criminal defendant's right to testify on their own behalf is a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsu

Legal Analysis

The Court began by establishing that a criminal defendant's right to testify Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adip

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A criminal defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to testify on
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repr

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?