Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00978-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. De La Cruz
Defendant
J. Miramontes
Defendant
Erick Laton Stewart Sr.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERICK LATON STEWART SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. DE LA CRUZ and J. MIRAMONTES,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00978-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

(Doc. No. 45) 

Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict filed December 

10, 2024. (Doc. No. 45). Plaintiff requests that he be administered a polygraph test to prove he is 

telling the truth to resolve this claim and that, afterwards, a directed verdict be entered in his 

favor. (Id. at 1). 

The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s motions seeking the administration of a polygraph 

test and incorporates its reasoning as though set forth at length herein. (See Doc. Nos. 35, 42). 

Further, Plaintiff is advised that even if he did undergo a polygraph test the results of such test 

would not be deemed admissible for the purpose Plaintiff seeks to have the results admitted. The 

Ninth Circuit has indicated that polygraph evidence can be relevant and thus admissible when the

polygraph evidence is being offered not to prove the truth of the polygraph test results, but only to 

Case 1:20-cv-00978-HBK Document 48 Filed 12/16/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

prove that the polygraph test was offered and/or administered.

It is well settled in this circuit that polygraph evidence is disfavored 

and cannot be introduced into evidence to establish the truth of the 

statements made during the examination. Thus, if the evidence is 

being offered to prove the truth or falsity of the polygraph results, 

then the evidence is inadmissible. 

United States v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 1337, 1341 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Finally, a directed verdict is proper at trial only where the evidence permits only one 

reasonable conclusion as to the verdict. Peterson v. Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1244, 1256 (9th

Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1122, 106 S.Ct. 1642, 90 L.Ed.2d 187 (1986).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s motion for a polygraph examination and for a directed verdict (Doc. No. 45) is

DENIED. 

Dated: December 16, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00978-HBK Document 48 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 2