[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Terry,
Jackie is correct and you are wrong. Justice Stevens was the LONE
dissenter as you correctly point out. It was an 8-1 decision and the
ruling clearly reflects the courts opinion that "there is simply no way
to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's conclusion is
accurate."
Since you seemed to want to use the court's decision to defend your
opinion before you realized that they had not even issued their decision
to allow these tests as evidence, you surely must recognize that their
decision NOT to allow them refutes your point. Especially with respect
to the amicus brief you cited. Obviously this brief did not hold water
with the Court.
Bill
On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 08:26:22 -0500 (EST) [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.
>
>>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:
_____________________________________________________________________
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 law-issues
>>
>>
>Best, Terry
>
>"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
>
>
>
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
_____________________________________________________________________
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
