Opinion ID: 2623542
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: admissibility of polygraph evidence in federal courts

Text: United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 [118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413] (1998) held that military courts' per se rule excluding polygraph evidence did not violate a defendant's right under the Fifth or Sixth Amendment to present a defense. Beyond this holding, the decision lacks precedential value, given the fractured makeup of the Court's three opinions. In contrast to the majority of state courts, only two federal circuits have a per se rule barring admissibility. See United States v. Prince-Oyibo, 320 F.3d 494 (4th Cir.2003), Petition for Certiorari Filed, (July 11, 2003)(NO. 03-5297) and United States v. Skeens, 494 F.2d 1050 (D.C.Cir.1974)(citing the Circuit's decision in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923)). Most federal appellate courts leave admission of polygraph evidence to the discretion of the trial courts, but generally such evidence is excluded on the basis of Daubert /Rule 702 or Rule 403 or both. See United States v. Black, 78 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.1996)(generally inadmissible); United States v. Santiago-Gonzalez, 66 F.3d 3, 6 (1st Cir.1995)(admissible if agreed to in plea bargain); United States v. Kwong, 69 F.3d 663, 668 (2nd Cir.1995)(balancing test under Rule 403); United States v. Lee, 315 F.3d 206, 214 (3rd Cir.2003) (noting lack of per se exclusionary rule and admissibility to rebut claim of coerced confession but declining to rule on admissibility at trial or revocation hearing), Petition for Certiorari Filed, (June 2, 2003)(NO. 02-11166); United States v. Posado, 57 F.3d 428, 434 (5th Cir.1995)(must meet Rule 702 and Rule 403 standards); United States v. Sherlin, 67 F.3d 1208, 1216-17 (6th Cir.1995)(Rule 403 standard, but results generally inadmissible, especially if unstipulated); United States v. Lea, 249 F.3d 632, 640 (7th Cir.2001) ([W]e continue to hold that a district court need not conduct a full Daubert analysis in order to determine the admissibility of standard polygraph evidence, and instead may examine the evidence under a Rule 403 framework. Nonetheless, we posit that the factors outlined by the Supreme Court in Daubert remain a useful tool for gauging the reliability of the proffered testimony, as reliability may factor into a 403 balancing test.). See also United States v. Williams, 95 F.3d 723, 729-30 (8th Cir.1996)(suggesting non-stipulated evidence may be admissible under Daubert if Rule 403 is met) and United States v. Waters, 194 F.3d 926 (8th Cir.1999) ( Daubert hearing unnecessary where 403 not met despite defendant passing test requested and given by prosecution); United States v. Cordoba, 194 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.1999)(must meet 702 and 403); United States v. Call, 129 F.3d 1402 (10th Cir.1997)(evidence properly excluded under 403 where requested Daubert hearing not held); United States v. Gilliard, 133 F.3d 809 (11th Cir.1998)(Honts-administered polygraph inadmissible under 702 and under 403). Leaving discretion to trial courts rather than prescribing a per se rule does not seem to have changed practice substantially. [13] That is, even when presented with an opportunity to admit polygraph evidence, most [federal] district courts are decidedly reluctant to do so. See State v. Porter, [241 Conn. 57] 698 A.2d 739, 776-77 (Conn.1997). One rare case admitting polygraph evidence was United States v. Galbreth, 908 F.Supp. 877 (D.N.M.1995). In Galbreth, Judge Vasquez admitted the expert opinion testimony of Dr. Raskin, the nation's leading supporter of the validity of polygraph evidence, after finding it met the reliability criteria of Rule 702 and Daubert as well as being more probative than prejudicial under Rule 403. Dr. Raskin had given Galbreth a polygraph test, which the court described as a properly conducted examination by a highly qualified, experienced, and skillful examiner. Id. at 896. However, this ruling carries little weight due to its procedural placement. The judge ruled from the bench after a hearing in March, 1995. In July, 1995, the case went to trial. At the conclusion of the Government's case-in-chief, the Government dismissed the charges (income tax evasion). Galbreth's polygraph evidence was never presented to the jury. On October 4, 1995, the judge issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order that detailed her ruling on the admission of the polygraph evidence. The Order was therefore unappealable and dicta. State v. Porter, [241 Conn. 57] 698 A.2d 739, 777, n. 76 (Conn.1997) described Galbreth this way: The most substantial of the few federal opinions permitting polygraph evidence at trial comes from the District Court of New Mexico. United States v. Galbreth, supra, 908 F.Supp. 877. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had only addressed the question of polygraph admissibility before Daubert had been released; see United States v. Soundingsides, 820 F.2d 1232, 1241-42 (10th Cir.1987); so the court in Galbreth felt free to formulate its own standard. The court accepted that Daubert provided the proper threshold standard; id., at 878; and then relied largely on testimony by Raskin to conclude that polygraph evidence satisfied Daubert and rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Id., at 895. Although the court in Galbreth did address many of the concerns that have motivated us to retain our per se rule of exclusion, it did so by recounting only the most propolygraph studies and information. Id., at 885-93. We believe that a more balanced review of the polygraph literature, such as we have conducted in the present case, reveals substantially more uncertainty regarding the effectiveness and prejudicial impact of the polygraph test than the court in Galbreth acknowledged. Dr. Raskin scored the test as + 29, and Dr. Honts scored it as + 32, indicating a high probability of truthfulness. The Government's expert, Dr. Barland, found the charts to be inconclusive. Galbreth at 894. A critical issue was whether Galbreth knowingly failed to report income. Had Dr. Raskin testified, he would have been permitted to state that Galbreth's answers to the relevant questions regarding his knowledge and intent [were] consistent with a truthful polygraph outcome. Id. at 895. (Emphasis added.) As the judge put it: Dr. Raskin concluded that Defendant was truthful in his statements that he did not realize his returns under reported his taxable income. At trial, Defendant intends to call Dr. Raskin as an expert witness to testify about the testing procedures, to explain how the test was evaluated and to explain his interpretation of the results. Dr. Raskin is expected to testify that the results are indicative of a truthful polygraph test outcome with regard to the relevant questions. Dr. Raskin will not testify as to his personal opinion that Defendant was in fact telling the truth. Id. at 878. The testimony would therefore not be limited to Galbreth's credibility but would cover his substantive answers to questions concerning his guilt or innocence. The judge would have allowed the assistant U.S. Attorney to cross-examine Dr. Raskin and to present the Government's expert to refute any of Dr. Raskin's testimony relating to the polygraph technique in general or to the specific application of that technique in this case. Id. at 896. There was no mention of permitting the Government to give Galbreth a polygraph exam. By contrast, another district court in United States v. Crumby, 895 F.Supp. 1354, 1363 (D.Ariz.1995) admitted the evidence with severe limitations while noting that the prejudicial effect of permitting the jury to hear the specific responses to the question of whether Defendant committed the ultimate crime in the case is overwhelmingly prejudicial. That is, Crumby could introduce evidence that he took and passed the test if (1) he gave notice to the prosecutor, (2) took a government-administered test, (3) introduced the evidence only to support his credibility, if attacked, under Rule 608(a), and (4) the specific questions and physiological data were not introduced into evidence, although the general nature of polygraphy could be discussed by the experts under Rule 702. Id. at 1365. In Crumby, Dr. Raskin again testified, but unlike the Galbreth prosecutor, the U.S. Attorney did not offer any expert testimony as to the validity of the theoretical basis for the polygraph, nor contest Dr. Raskin's testimony regarding the known error rate. The Crumby decision failed to mention any of the studies that challenge the validity of polygraph tests. Galbreth and Crumby are exceptions, even within their own federal circuits, to the general rule that polygraph evidence is not admitted in federal courts. See United States v. Call, 129 F.3d 1402 (10th Cir.1997) and United States v. Cordoba, 194 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.1999)(barring evidence under Rule 702 due to lack of known error rate for real life exams, controversy in scientific community regarding validity of theory behind test, and lack of controlling standards).