Opinion ID: 2070715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Repeated or isolated reference.

Text: In the present case, Curtis referred to a lie detector in two successive answers. The defense objections were sustained and, a few minutes later, the judge admonished the jury not to consider these references. The jury heard nothing further about polygraph tests. A number of courts have held that a brief and inadvertent reference to a polygraph examination was not sufficient to bring about a miscarriage of justice, and that reversal of the defendant's conviction was not required. See People v. Whitfield, 58 Mich. App. 585, 228 N.W.2d 475, 477 (1975) (citing cases). [W]e cannot say that this one utterance [regarding a witness' polygraph examination] caused a miscarriage of justice which would necessitate a reversal of the conviction. Sullivan v. State, 303 So.2d 632, 636 (Fla.1974), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 3226, 49 L.Ed.2d 1220 (1976); see also State v. Farrar, 309 Or. 132, 786 P.2d 161, 182 (Or.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 879, 111 S.Ct. 212, 112 L.Ed.2d 171 (1990) ([t]he reference did not warrant a mistrial because it was isolated and made only in passing, the results of the test were not disclosed, and the state never argued that the test had any significance to the witness's credibility or to any other issue in the case). The brevity of Curtis' allusions to the polygraph thus tilts in some measure in the government's favor. We agree with the Supreme Court of Maine, however, that [t]he fact that the reference is isolated and inadvertent does not alone insure that the reference is not prejudicial. State v. Edwards, 412 A.2d 983, 985 (Me.1980). Sometimes, even a drop of ink cannot be removed from a glass of milk. Thompson v. United States, 546 A.2d 414, 425 (D.C.1988) (quoting Government of Virgin Islands v. Toto, 529 F.2d 278, 283 (3d Cir.1976)).