Opinion ID: 2443527
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of Evidence Connected to Polygraph Examinations

Text: [¶ 14] We have a long-standing, fundamental concern regarding polygraph machines due to their non-existent value when it comes to determining credibility, [2] State v. Harnish, 560 A.2d 5, 8 (Me.1989) (quotation marks omitted), and the dangerous possibility that credibility will be evaluated by the device rather than by the trier of fact, State v. Rameau, 685 A.2d 761, 764 & n. 8 (Me.1996) (alteration omitted) (quotation marks omitted). Consequently, polygraph test results and a defendant's willingness, or unwillingness, to take a polygraph test are inadmissible. Harnish, 560 A.2d at 8; State v. Trafton, 425 A.2d 1320, 1322 (Me.1981); State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310, 320, 110 A.2d 588, 592-93 (1954). [¶ 15] The scientific evidence simply does not support the reliability or validity of polygraph examinations. [3] Accordingly, nearly every state either bar[s] the admission of polygraph evidence outright ... [or] limit[s] the admission of polygraph evidence to cases where both parties stipulate to its use. State v. A.O., 198 N.J. 69, 965 A.2d 152, 161-62 (2009) (collecting cases); see also United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 309-12 & nn. 6-8, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998) (discussing the contention within the scientific community regarding polygraph examinations and the evolution of their use within state and federal jurisdictions). [¶ 16] However, we have recognized that polygraph tests are valuable tools in the investigation of crime, for example, in developing leads, State v. Mower, 314 A.2d 840, 841 (Me. 1974) (emphasis omitted) (quotation marks omitted), and that there is a practical necessity for the use of deception in criminal investigations, Bailey, 2010 ME 15, ¶ 23, 989 A.2d at 723 (quotation marks omitted). Therefore, admissions made by an accused after the polygraph testing ... although made in response to questions prompted by the polygraph examiner's interpretation of reactions to questions asked during the testing, are admissible if such admissions are found to be voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Bowden, 342 A.2d 281, 285 (Me.1975) (emphasis omitted) (quotation marks omitted); accord State v. Patterson, 651 A.2d 362, 366 (Me.1994). [¶ 17] Lavoie has invited us to overrule this long-standing precedent and adopt the approach the Montana Supreme Court articulated in State v. Craig, 262 Mont. 240, 864 P.2d 1240 (1993). In Craig, the statement made by [a] defendant following a polygraph examination where the police officers used the results of the polygraph to tell the defendant he had lied so as to elicit a statement or confession was held to be inadmissible. Id. at 1242-43. As the dissent in Craig noted, however, the voluntariness of a confession should be determined based on the totality of the circumstances, and there is no reason to place an unjustified restriction on legitimate police interrogation. Id. at 1243-45 (Nelson, J., dissenting). On the record before us, we are not persuaded to overturn our thirty-five-year-old rule regarding the admissibility of confessions made in the context of polygraph tests, choosing instead to continue to evaluate each case according to its particular indicia of voluntariness. See Bowden, 342 A.2d at 285.