Opinion ID: 1494221
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gerry's Reference to the Lie Detector Test

Text: Gerry testified on direct that he disclosed three of these matters to his lawyer before the police found illegal drugs and weapons in his home and before he was offered a plea agreement in exchange for his testimony against Tom. [12] In contrast, Gerry testified that he did not disclose the fact that he and Tom had discussed Tom's use of Gerry's boat to dispose of a body until after Gerry agreed to cooperate with the police and [b]efore I went and took a lie detector test. [13] Counsel for Tom Capano immediately moved for a mistrial on the ground that Gerry's reference to the lie detector test encouraged the jury to assume that Gerry took and passed the test and was therefore telling the truth. The trial court denied the motion, ordered the unresponsive outburst stricken, and instructed the jury to disregard Gerry's lie detector remark. The court's complete instruction to the jury at this point was as follows: Members of the jury, immediately before the luncheon break, the defense objected to the unresponsive answer of the witness to Mr. Connolly's question. The answer made reference to a lie detector test. Such a response is inadmissible, even though the witness did not indicate whether or not he had taken such a test, or if so, what the results might have indicated. The Courts of this state, the Federal Courts, and those of every other state, have consistently found such tests to be unreliable, and therefore inadmissible as evidence. Therefore, you are to disregard the witness' response, and you are not under any circumstances to speculate as to whether or not he took such a test, or what the results of such a test might have been. You are to in no way consider the witness' response in your determinations. [14] The initial problem we note is the confusion in the record about whether or not Gerry actually took the lie detector test. In his unresponsive outburst, Gerry fixed the time of his disclosure to the government as being before I went and took a lie detector test. [15] When the trial judge instructed the jury to disregard the witness' response, the trial judge said the witness did not indicate whether or not he had taken such a test, or if so, what the results might have indicated, and admonished the jury not under any circumstances to speculate as to whether or not he took such a test, or what the results of such a test might have been. Whether or not the trial judge accurately characterized Gerry's testimony, any misstatement there may have been was harmless. The testimony was stricken and there were no later references suggesting that Gerry actually took the lie detector test. We now turn to the remainder of this issue. Capano argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Capano's motion for a mistrial after Gerry referred to the lie detector test during his testimony. A mistrial is not automatically required, however, every time a witness mentions a polygraph test. [16] The trial court should grant a mistrial only if the reference to the test raises an inference about the result that substantially prejudices the defendant's case in light of all of the evidence. [17] In assessing the prejudice produced by such references, courts have considered a wide variety of factors, the most important of which are: [18] (1) the effectiveness of a limiting instruction, (2) the extent to which the State's case depends on the witness' testimony, and (3) the extent to which the credibility of the witness is in dispute. [19] With respect to Gerry's unsolicited comment, the most important factor is the effectiveness of the trial court's curative instruction. As noted above  and it is worth repeating  the trial court instructed the jury that: The Courts of this state, the Federal Courts, and those of every other state, have consistently found such tests to be unreliable, and therefore inadmissible as evidence. Therefore, you are to disregard the witness' response, and you are not under any circumstances to speculate as to whether or not he took such a test, or what the results of such a test might have been. [20] On this point, Capano argues that the court's instruction could not prevent or even discourage unwarranted inferences by the jury about Gerry's credibility from the fact that he took or may have taken a polygraph test. [21] As a general rule, we must presume that the jurors followed the court's instruction. [22] In the present case, we conclude that the trial judge's striking of the testimony and his immediate limiting instruction was sufficient to neutralize any prejudice to the defense from Gerry's comment about his lie detector test. [23]