Re: L&I Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info

[William J. Foristal]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:



On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 16:59:59 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> Hi Jackie,
>>
>> You are wrong.  As Justice Stevens noted in his lone dissent the 
>courts are
>> very selective in their willingness to use polygraph results.
>>
>> Justice Thomas wrote the decision.  He was smart enough to avoid the 
>lie
>> detector.  Anita Hill passed hers.
>>
>
>Hi Terry
>
>How can I be wrong--Thomas wrote the decision in which the majority 
>agreed that
>not introducing the polygraph did not deny Schffler of his 
>constitutional
>rights because it is of such a controversial nature.  The lie detector 
>is a
>polygraph, it is the Keller polygraph--so why does Thomas writing 
>polygraph
>instead of lie detector mean anything at all??
>
>And just because Hill took a polygraph and passed has absolutely no 
>bearing on
>this case or on Thomas writing the majority position.  Seems like you 
>are
>saying that because he wrote the majority opinion, it must be biased 
>and the
>dissenting *minority* opinion of one is more valid.
>
>And if you consider that your dissenting judge says the courts are 
>very
>selective in their willingness to use the polygraph, IMO,  that means 
>that most
>courts do not feel it is reliable enough to be admissible--that is 
>what I have
>been saying from the beginning.  If polygraphs were so all fired 
>reliable
>outside the laboratory protocols that ensure validity and reliability, 
>the
>majority of courts would not be so selective in their willingness to 
>use it.
>They would find it a godsend as it would help clear up the current 
>backlog of
>cases.  And a lot more states would be using it, not just the one 
>state you
>continually mention, New Mexico.  As far as military courts using it, 
>this was
>a military court that did not allow it and the Supreme Court sided 
>with the
>military court.
>
>jackief

Hi Jackie,

You are 100% correct.  Even Judge Stevens in his dissenting opinion did
not offer any statements about the validity of the lie detector results. 
His concern was in denying a defendant the right to present all evidence
that a jury may deem to be exculpatory.

NONE of the justices bought the rigged results of the study cited in the
amicus brief that suggested a lie detector test produced results that
were correct in excess of 90% of the time.  In fact, not many people
discussing this issue bought this information.  

Bill


_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues