[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
