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

[Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D.]

"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


Hi Jackie: I don't think so, correct me at will. I believe the Supreme
Court left it up to separate jurisdictions to decide. What the Supremes
seem to have said is that it is not an infringement of constitutional
rights to bar introduction of the polygraph in instances where the right
to present the best defense is not weakened, and here the defendant had
opportunity to present actual facts, and was not dependent on what
amounts to expert testimony (polyugraph). What think you? :) LDMF.
--------------------Jackie Fellows wrote:---------------------------
> 
> Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> Hi Sue
> 
> Thanks for ferreting out pertinent info. for all of us.  I am not sure I
> read this right--my eyes might be biased <VBG>, but it seems the Supreme
> court is not willing to accept the idea that the polygraph is admissible.
> Am I correct in this??
> 
> jackief
> 
> Sue Hartigan wrote:
> 
> > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Hi Terry:
> >
> > There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable: The
> > scientific
> > community and the state and federal courts are extremely
> > polarized on the matter. Pp. 4-9. (b) Rule 707 does not implicate
> > a sufficiently weighty interest of the accused to raise a
> > constitutional concern under this Court's precedents. The three
> > cases principally relied upon by the Court of Appeals, Rock,
> > supra, at 57, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23, and Chambers
> > v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302-303, do not support a right to
> > introduce polygraph evidence, even in very narrow circumstances.
> > The exclusions of evidence there declared unconstitutional
> > significantly undermined fundamental elements of the accused's
> > defense. Such is not the case here, where the court members heard
> > all the relevant details of the charged offense from respondent's
> > perspective, and Rule 707 did not preclude him from introducing
> > any factual evidence, but merely barred him from introducing
> > expert opinion testimony to bolster his own credibility.
> > Moreover, in contrast to the rule at issue in Rock, supra, at
> > 52, Rule 707 did not prohibit respondent from testifying on his
> > own behalf; he freely exercised his choice to convey his version
> > of the facts at trial. Pp. 11-14. THOMAS, J., announced the
> > judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with
> > respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-D, in which REHNQUIST, C.J.,
> > and O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER,
> > JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-B and II-
> > C, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and SCALIA and SOUTER, JJ.,
> > joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
> > concurring in the judgment, in which O'CONNOR, GINSBURG, and
> > BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > --
> > 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
> 
> --
> In the sociology room the children learn
> that even dreams are colored by your perspective
> 
> I toss and turn all night.    Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues


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