Opinion ID: 602391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: results of polygraph examination

Text: 11 During the direct examination of Weiner, his counsel moved in limine to prevent the prosecution from questioning Weiner regarding polygraph examinations he had taken during his cooperation with the FBI. The court ruled that the prosecution could question Weiner about the examinations, not to prove that he had lied, but because Weiner had opened the door for an explanation of the government's conduct in the investigation, and its efforts to determine Weiner's credibility. On direct, Weiner testified that in May, 1987, his cooperation with the FBI broke down because they had a disagreement. The prosecution wanted to show that the parting between Weiner and the FBI was because the FBI asked Weiner to take a polygraph examination and discontinued using him after the results of the examinations indicated deception on Weiner's part. When the court ruled that the government could examine Weiner about the examinations, Weiner's counsel elicited testimony on direct regarding the polygraph examination and the fact that he had passed one examination and failed another. The prosecution covered the matter briefly on cross-examination and counsel for Lewin also cross-examined the defendant on the issue, reciting some of the questions posed in one of the polygraph examinations. The court gave a limiting instruction at the time of the cross-examination by the government and also during jury instructions at the conclusion of the trial. 12 Ordinarily, polygraph examination results are inadmissible as evidence. Wolfel v. Holbrook, 823 F.2d 970, 972 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1069, 108 S.Ct. 1035, 98 L.Ed.2d 999 (1988). However, there are some circumstances under which polygraph evidence may be admissible. See United States v. Barger, 931 F.2d 359, 370 (6th Cir.1991). Here, the prosecution could have only shown that Weiner took the examinations and, as a result, he was no longer used by the FBI. This was not to prove that he had lied in his answers to the questions, but to show why he was no longer being used as an informant. Most of the evidence pertaining to the polygraph examination was again the result of a deliberate trial strategy. Therefore, we find no error in the limited use of the polygraph evidence. See Zalman, 870 F.2d at 1056.III. FAILURE TO GRANT A SEVERANCE 13 Defendants Weiner and Lewin moved for severance before trial and renewed the motions during the trial and at the conclusion of the evidence, under Fed.R.Crim.P. 14. Defendant Lewin also argued on appeal that he was improperly joined under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b), but that issue was not raised in the district court. A Rule 14 severance motion does not preserve a Rule 8 misjoinder objection. United States v. Scaife, 749 F.2d 338, 344 (6th Cir.1984). Therefore, the misjoinder argument under Rule 8 was waived. 14 With regard to the issue of severance under Rule 14, a district court's denial of a motion under that Rule should be reversed only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 809 F.2d 1194, 1207 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1007, 107 S.Ct. 3234, 97 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987). In addition, the general rule is that parties who are jointly indicted should be tried together. Id. That is particularly true when the defendants are joined in a conspiracy or joint participation in a common scheme. See United States v. Horton, 847 F.2d 313, 317 (6th Cir.1988). 15 The primary contention of the defendants for a severance is that there were antagonistic defenses and that each defendant pointed to another to absolve himself. However, even if defendants have antagonistic defenses, in order to prevail on a motion to sever, a defendant must show that the antagonism will mislead or confuse the jury. United States v. Benton, 852 F.2d 1456, 1469 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993, 109 S.Ct. 555, 102 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988). Even if there is some potential jury confusion, such confusion must be balanced against society's interest in a speedy and efficient trial. Id. The defendant carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing of prejudice. In this case, the prejudice which was asserted is that had Weiner been severed from the case against the codefendant, the evidence concerning his cooperation with the FBI in acting as an undercover agent would never have been introduced, as it was brought out by counsel for the codefendants. In addition, some of the evidence concerning the polygraph results may not have been introduced. However, Weiner introduced most of that evidence in his own case in chief, and the prosecution might very well have taken a different approach to the case had the codefendants not been on trial with Weiner. Nevertheless, there was no confusion or misleading evidence which was so prejudicial to require the district court to be reversed for denying the motion to sever. 16 Another contention by Lewin is that there was overwhelming evidence against Weiner, so he should not have been tried jointly with Weiner, as there was much evidence about transactions in which Lewin did not participate. Nevertheless, all the transactions involved the conspiracy and the common scheme. The disparity of evidence against defendants is not sufficient by itself to warrant a severance. See Davis, 809 F.2d at 1207. 17 The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever under Rule 14.