Opinion ID: 388130
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Available State Justifications for Stanislawski

Text: 20 State and federal evidentiary rules excluding polygraph evidence have usually justified that exclusion by reference to two problems with polygraph evidence. Courts have been concerned with the reliability of the evidence itself as well as with the potential that juries may improperly regard polygraph evidence as infallible. 9 United States v. Alexander, 526 F.2d 161, 168 (8th Cir. 1975). Wisconsin, however, has adopted the seemingly commendable position that its evidentiary rules should not be tied to the conditions of another era when circumstances differed markedly from the present. Since their initial historic rejection in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), 21 polygraph tests have moved from the 'twilight zone' of Frye to such degree of standing and scientific recognition that unconditional rejection of expert testimony based on polygraph testimony is no longer indicated. 22 Stanislawski, 62 Wis.2d 730, 741, 216 N.W.2d 8, 13 (1974). 10 We agree with the Wisconsin Supreme Court's assessment. Scientific developments seem to have made the polygraph more reliable. 11 In addition, science, for better or for worse, has become more a part of our daily lives. Scientific evidence, in turn, has become more a part of the ordinary trial so that jurors may be more likely to use polygraph evidence with discretion. 12 23 A by-product of Wisconsin's liberal attitude regarding polygraph evidence, however, is that Wisconsin is unable to assert many of the traditional objections to polygraph evidence to sustain the two aspects of the Stanislawski stipulation requirement under review here. Other justifications have been argued, however, and we shall now consider the separate justifications asserted for each portion of the stipulation requirement. 24
25 The state justifies the requirement that the district attorney sign a written stipulation to the admission of the results of a polygraph test on the theory that a pre-test stipulation 13 increases the reliability of the test itself. Without a pre-test stipulation as to admissibility, the defendant could continue to take successive tests until one finally produced favorable results. The defendant could also take each test secure in the knowledge that the test results would neither be disclosed nor be used against him should they not turn out to be favorable. This sense of security diminishes the fear of discovered deception, upon which an effective examination depends. United States v. Wilson, 361 F.Supp. 510, 514 (D.Md.1973); See also United States v. Urquidez, 356 F.Supp. 1363, 1366 (C.D.Cal.1973). Academic commentators in the field have also recognized that stipulation requirements heighten the fears of the person undergoing the test about being detected and increase the reliability of the polygraph examination. Orne, Implications of Laboratory Research for the Detection of Deception, 2 Polygraph 169, 193-95 (1973); Abbell, Polygraph Evidence: The Case Against Admissibility in Federal Criminal Trials, 15 Am.Crim.L.Rev. 29, 35 (1977). Although we have no definitive view on the matter, as a matter of common sense we find this thesis quite reasonable. 26 Defendant, however, challenges the validity of this hypothesis with the citation of other academic works that reject the hypothesis or have found it unsubstantiated in laboratory tests. 14 As indicated, we do not wish to weigh the empirical evidence on this claim and, indeed, feel less than fully qualified to do so. 27 'It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.' Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311, 52 S.Ct. 371, 386, 76 L.Ed.2d 747. 28 Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261, 296, 67 S.Ct. 1613, 1631, 91 L.Ed. 2043 (1947). While the matter is open to debate, there is a sufficient possibility of enhancing the reliability of polygraph examinations to support the Stanislawski pre-test stipulation requirement. 29
30 Our inquiry does not end here, however, for the defendant also challenges the refusal of the prosecutor to enter into the stipulation. An implicit aspect of the Stanislawski conditions, as construed in the decisions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the instant case and in Lhost v. State, 85 Wis.2d 629, 271 N.W.2d 121 (1978), is that the prosecutor has the power to refuse a defendant's offer to stipulate to the admission of the results of a polygraph examination without articulating his reasons. The effect of this rule is to give the prosecutor an unrestricted veto, for any reason or no reason at all, over the use of polygraph evidence by the defendant. An additional deleterious side effect of this policy is that, in the absence of any obligation to justify his refusal, the prosecutor's veto evades meaningful judicial review. 31 Thus, the prosecutor in the instant case gave no reason for refusing to enter into the offered stipulation. The effect of this refusal was to preclude the defendant's use of the results of a polygraph test under any circumstances. Permitting this kind of refusal invites an abuse of the stipulation requirement. Prosecutors occupy an adversarial role and have adversarial responsibilities. Such untrammeled authority to exclude, without explanation, exculpatory defense evidence must be scrutinized carefully. The potential for abuse of an unrestricted veto is a particular problem in cases like the instant one where the prosecution has a relatively weak case and polygraph evidence might justifiably alter the outcome. 15 32 The sole justification that we can perceive for giving the prosecutor the power to exclude polygraph evidence is to interpose an additional check on the determination that polygraph evidence is sufficiently trustworthy and capable of evaluation by the jury to be admitted in a particular case. Robinson v. State, 100 Wis.2d 152, 162, 301 N.W.2d 429, 434 (1981). 16 Such an additional check can certainly serve valid purposes. For example, the prosecutor may properly refuse to enter into a stipulation because the defendant proposed to use an unqualified examiner or to take the test under conditions not conducive to reliable results. The prosecutor might also justifiably refuse to enter into a stipulation if he has reason to believe that the defendant is polygraph proof because he had managed to evade detection of deceptive responses in a previous examination. The right of an accused to present evidence in his defense must still yield to established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt or innocence. Chambers, 410 U.S. at 302, 93 S.Ct. at 1049. The prosecutor may thus perfectly validly refuse to stipulate when his veto is being used to increase the reliability of the trial process. 17 However, as an adversarial figure, the prosecutor's refusal to enter into a stipulation must be for justifiable reasons. Justifiable reasons in this context are reasons which go to the reliability of the test or to the integrity of the trial process, not reasons which consider merely the relative tactical advantages from the use of the evidence to the prosecution and the defense. To establish this justification, the prosecutor must articulate his reasons and the trial court must have appropriate powers of review. 18 33 Although the prosecutor here stated no reasons for his refusal to stipulate to the examination, the Wisconsin Supreme Court felt that the prosecutor's refusal was justified because it prevented collateral issues surrounding the testimony of an examiner as to the results of a polygraph examination from overly complicating the jury's decision. But, given the facts of the instant case, such a rationalization is simply not persuasive. This was a quite simple case with only one prosecution witness. The collateral issues attendant on the introduction of polygraph evidence would thus seem not to have been too confusing or complex for the jury to digest while, at the same time, retaining their focus on the direct evidence of the defendant's involvement in the crime. The critical importance of the credibility determination in this case also renders the polygraph evidence so material that the very limited potential for confusion from the use of the defendant's polygraph evidence should not be sufficient to block the use of this evidence for unstated and potentially inappropriate reasons. While Wisconsin has reached a contrary conclusion on this question, its judgment as to the precise contours of the stipulation process must still satisfy the Constitution. See Galloway v. Brewer, 525 F.2d 369 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 974, 96 S.Ct. 1478, 47 L.Ed.2d 744 (1976). 34 We must stress, however, that ultimately our decision is closely linked to the peculiarities of the Wisconsin stipulation rule. The Wisconsin rule is not solely a consent rule whereby the parties waive the benefit of a rule of evidence barring the introduction of polygraph evidence. 19 Stipulation rules based on consent principles reflect state judgments that polygraph evidence is too unreliable or too capable of misinterpretation to be admitted at trial but recognize that the parties may waive their evidentiary objections. 20 See State v. McNamara, 252 Iowa 19, 104 N.W.2d 568 (1960). In contrast, as stated in Lhost v. State, 85 Wis.2d 620, 646, 271 N.W.2d 121, 133 (1978), (t)he Wisconsin stipulation rule pronounced in Stanislawski is designed to assure the fairness and reliability in the introduction of polygraph results in evidence. Indeed, the change in Wisconsin law allowing the introduction of polygraph testimony rests on the adoption of the premise in Stanislawski that polygraph examinations have become more reliable and have achieved such a degree of scientific recognition that their unconditional rejection is no longer appropriate. Stanislawski, 62 Wis.2d at 741, 216 N.W.2d at 13. Wisconsin's divergence from the consent approach is further illustrated by the fact that both parties may, subsequent to the stipulated examination, contest the admission of the evidence in a pre-admission hearing. State v. Mendoza, 80 Wis.2d 122, 258 N.W.2d 260 (1977). Our decision is thus consistent with the philosophy underlying the Wisconsin stipulation requirement. 35 In essence, therefore, we find the prosecutor's veto of the test in the instant case to be constitutionally impermissible because he stated no reasons which might be reviewed by the trial court. From all that appears, he was acting solely for tactical reasons in the belief that a test would not be helpful to his case. If the prosecutor refuses and states reasons, it then becomes the duty of the court to determine whether the reasons offered rise above the purely tactical considerations present in a given case. Certainly, no proper state purpose is served by allowing a purely tactical veto power. We do not hold that Wisconsin may not absolutely refuse to admit polygraph evidence, or that a judge may not refuse to admit polygraph evidence in a particular case; we merely hold that it offends due process for the prosecutor, as an adversary, to exercise an unrestricted veto unrelated on the record to any reasons appropriate to the stipulation requirement over the significantly exculpatory polygraph evidence in the instant case. 36 We therefore hold that the refusal of the prosecutor to enter into the stipulation offered here may have violated the petitioner's right to be tried in accordance with the due process clause. We remand this action to the district court, however, for further proceedings to assess whether the prosecutor had valid reasons for refusing to enter into the stipulation offered by the defendant. If the refusal was unjustified, 21 the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be granted. 22 37 REVERSED AND REMANDED.