Opinion ID: 1155936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: refusal to take polygraph test

Text: Even more serious, however, was the court's decision to receive evidence which informed the jury that Dr. Schmunk had refused to take a lie detector test in this case. That occurred in this fashion. The videotape, State Exhibit No. 21, was played for the jury. Appellant moved to dismiss and for a mistrial and, as one of the grounds for his motion, stated: [N]umber one, the Doctor indicated on that video that he would not take a polygraph   . The prosecuting attorney, referring to Dr. Schmunk's refusal to submit to a lie detector test, responded: I think it did paint a bit of the Defendant's personality, which we thought was of some significance in the course of the investigation, the pretense of cooperation while at the same time trying to manipulate the investigation.    It was, I think, helpful to the State, but not in the sense that it painted a bad picture about Michigan. The court stated, I do want to delete it. Surprisingly, after the deletion, the videotape that went to the jury room contained the following: [Investigator]: Based on the information that you've given us, would you be willing to take a polygraph test? [Appellant]: I wouldn't take it; I would not take a polygraph under any circumstances for anybody whether I was guilty, innocent or questionable, no, I would not take a polygraph. [Investigator]: Have you had a bad experience with them or have you had one before that    [Appellant]:    I'm, I'm just not willing to take a polygraph and hinge anything on what the, uh, the polygraph might suggest. [Investigator] Ok. Thus, the videotape containing Dr. Schmunk's refusal to take a lie detector test went with the jury when it retired to deliberate and was available for repeated viewing by the jury. As edited, the videotape contained only his refusal with no explanation or reason therefor. The purpose of putting the refusal in evidence was stated by the prosecutor as, it did paint a bit of the Defendant's personality and revealed defendant's pretense of cooperation while at the same time trying to manipulate the investigation. In effect, the prosecutor was saying that the refusal of Dr. Schmunk to take the lie detector test tended to show consciousness of guilt, for surely only a guilty man would try to manipulate the investigation. It is uniformly held that evidence that an accused has refused to take a lie detector test is not admissible to establish consciousness of guilt. 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 296. Thus, reference by the prosecutor to a refusal of the accused to take a lie detector test required reversal, State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255, 183 A.2d 655 (1962), and reversal was required also where reference to the refusal was in a recorded, taped interview. State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406, 375 P.2d 585 (1962). In Mills v. People, 139 Colo. 397, 339 P.2d 998 (1959), defendant, when asked, replied that he would not take a lie detector test. The evidence of refusal was admitted as showing consciousness of guilt. After declining to set forth the sordid details of the crime for which defendant was convicted of first degree murder, the appellate court stated (quoting from State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 52 N.W.2d 458, 465 (1952): `The impact upon the minds of the jurors of a refusal to submit to something which they might well assume would effectively determine guilt or innocence, under these conditions, might well be more devastating than a disclosure of the results of such test   .' Id. 339 P.2d at 999. The court then said: All too frequently this court is compelled to reverse judgments of guilt in important criminal cases because of overzealous prosecution. It is the duty of prosecuting officers to guard against the introduction of incompetent evidence. Overprosecution of an accused should not be permitted by the trial court. In the instant case the district attorney insisted at great length upon introduction into evidence of testimony [refusal to take a lie detector test] which is uniformly held to be incompetent, in an unbroken line of authorities throughout the nation. Id. 339 P.2d at 999-1000. It was error to inform the jury of Dr. Schmunk's refusal to submit to a lie detector test. The error was repeated when, after objection, the videotape was edited to contain only the refusal to take a lie detector test and sent to the jury room to be viewed during deliberations. [2] The great mass of authority holds it error to admit evidence of appellant's refusal to submit to a lie detector test. The admission of this evidence is again especially troublesome where the jury is informed that there is something dark and mysterious about Dr. Schmunk and leaves them to wonder and speculate concerning the reason for the doctor's refusal as it might relate to the motive for killing his wife. We note here that the practice of sending the videotaped testimony of a witness to the jury room for repeated viewing during deliberation poses the danger of unduly emphasizing that testimony over all of the other testimony in the case. That danger is even greater where testimony is in the form of a videotape, for: Videotape testimony is unique. It enables the jury to observe the demeanor and to hear the testimony of the witness. It serves as a functional equivalent of a live witness. United States v. Binder, 769 F.2d 595, 600 (9th Cir.1985). In this case, the jury could have observed and heard Dr. Schmunk on the edited videotape, repeatedly and emphatically refusing to submit to a lie detector test without stating a reason for his refusal. His credibility was crucial to his defense. In United States v. Binder, supra, the trial judge allowed the jury to replay the videotape in an abridged fashion, and the appellate court still reversed the conviction stating: Under these circumstances the videotaped testimony may have taken on great significance. Allowing the jury to see and hear the children's videotaped testimony a second time in the jury room during deliberations unduly emphasized their testimony. 769 F.2d at 601. We think repeated viewing of the Schmunk videotape contained an enormous potential for depriving him of a fair trial.