Opinion ID: 2974260
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Admit Younes’s Polygraph Test

Text: Younes further contends that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to admit the results of a unilaterally obtained polygraph test that Younes hoped would bolster her denials of guilt and by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing about the results. We review such decisions for abuse of discretion. United States v. Thomas, 167 F.3d 299, 308 (6th Cir. 1999). “The district court is not obligated to hold a Daubert hearing, and in the absence of a hearing, [this court] must review the record to determine whether the district court erred in its assessment of the relevance and reliability of the expert testimony.” Clay v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 663, 667 (6th Cir. 2000). In this case, the district court found that a hearing was unnecessary because Younes did not meet her burden of establishing the reliability of the proposed testimony. It also found that the evidence should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because its probative value was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. In refusing to grant a hearing or admit the polygraph evidence, the district court did not abuse its discretion. The Supreme Court noted in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 309 (1998), that “the scientific community remains extremely polarized about the reliability of polygraph techniques,” and Younes offers no new evidence suggesting otherwise. Moreover, this court takes - 22 - Nos. 05-1348, 05-1630, 05-1631 United States v. Younes the view that polygraph test results are generally disfavored and should be viewed with great skepticism. Thomas, 167 F.3d at 308. In this case, the fact that the test was one-sided and conducted without the government’s agreement further militates against admissibility.