There are 2 main positions concerning the potential of hypnosis to coerce unconsenting behavior. One position asserts that coercion is possible through the induction of distorted perceptions which delude the hypnotized person into believing that the behavior suggested is not transgressive. The other position asserts that where hypnosis appears to be a causal factor in coercing behavior, other elements in the situation- especially a close hypnotist-client relationship-were the main determinants of behavior. The present paper analyzes the court transcript of a recent case in Australia in which a lay hypnotist was found guilty of 3 sexual offenses against 2 female clients. The uniqueness of the case is that it pits the 2 main positions on hypnotic coercion against each other. The hypnotist admitted the acts attributed to him; his defense was that hypnotic coercion is impossible since a hypnotized person would resist immediately any transgressive suggestion. The women involved stated that they were aware of what was happening but that, because they were hypnotized, they were unable to resist. Analysis of the court transcript indicates that neither a hypothesis of hypnotically induced perceptual distortion, nor one of a close hypnotist-client relationship can account for the events that occurred. Other alternative explanations are discussed within the context of the inherent difficulties of analyzing a court transcript.