Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
I thought that this one would interest you. Sue
UNITED STATES v. SCHEFFER
No. 96-1133 -- Argued November 3, 1997
-- Decided March 31, 1998
44 M.J. 442, reversed.
< http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1133.cpanel.html >
=============================================================
A polygraph examination of respondent airman indicated, in the
opinion of the Air Force examiner administering the test, that
there was "no deception" in respondent's denial that he had used
drugs since enlisting. Urinalysis, however, revealed the presence
of methamphetamine, and respondent was tried by general court-
martial for using that drug and for other offenses. In denying
his motion to introduce the polygraph evidence to support his
testimony that he did not knowingly use drugs, the military judge
relied on Military Rule of Evidence 707, which makes polygraph
evidence inadmissible in court-martial proceedings. Respondent
was convicted on all counts, and the Air Force Court of Criminal
Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
reversed, holding that a per se exclusion of polygraph evidence
offered by an accused to support his credibility violates his
Sixth Amendment right to present a defense.
Held: The judgment is reversed.
44 M.J. 442, reversed.
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
