Document: 523 U.S. 303118 S.Ct. 1261140 L.Ed.2d 413 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Edward G. SCHEFFER. No. 96-1133. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Nov. 3, 1997. Decided March 31, 1998. Syllabus * A polygraph examination respondent airman indicated, in opinion Air Force examiner administering test, that there was "no deception'' respondent's denial he had used drugs since enlisting. Urinalysis, however, revealed presence methamphetamine, and tried by general court-martial for using drug other offenses. In denying his motion to introduce evidence support testimony did not knowingly use drugs, military judge relied on Military Rule Evidence 707, which makes inadmissible proceedings. Respondent convicted all counts, Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Armed Forces reversed, holding a per se exclusion offered an accused credibility violates Sixth Amendment right present defense. Held: judgment is reversed. 44 M.J. 442, Justice THOMAS delivered with respect Parts I, II-A, II-D, concluding 707 does unconstitutionally abridge members Pp. ____-____, ____-____. (a) defendant's relevant subject reasonable restrictions accommodate legitimate interests criminal trial process. See, e.g., Rock v. Arkansas, 483 44, 55, 107 2704, 2711, 97 37. State federal rulemakers therefore have broad latitude under Constitution establish rules excluding evidence. Such do accused's defense so long as they are "arbitrary'' or "disproportionate purposes designed serve.'' E.g., id., at 56, 2711-12. This has found be arbitrary disproportionate only where it infringed upon weighty interest accused. 58, 2712-13. serves ensuring reliable introduced. There simply no consensus reliable: scientific community state courts extremely polarized matter. (b) implicate sufficiently raise constitutional concern this Court's precedents. three cases principally Appeals, Rock, supra, 57, S.Ct., 2712, Washington Texas, 388 14, 23, 87 1920, 1925, 18 1019, Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 302-303, 93 1038, 1049-1050, 35 297, evidence, even very narrow circumstances. exclusions declared unconstitutional significantly undermined fundamental elements case here, court heard details charged offense from perspective, preclude him introducing any factual but merely barred expert bolster own credibility. Moreover, contrast rule issue 52, 2709-2710, prohibit testifying behalf; freely exercised choice convey version facts trial. THOMAS, J., announced REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined, II-B II-C, SCALIA joined. filed concurring part judgment, STEVENS, dissenting opinion. Michael R. Dreeben, Washington, DC, petitioner. Kim L. Sheffield, respondent. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, SOUTER 1 presents question whether proceedings, abridges We hold not. 2 1992, Edward Scheffer, stationed Base California, volunteered work informant investigations Office Special Investigations (OSI). His OSI supervisors advised that, time during course undercover work, would ask submit testing examinations. early April, one agents supervising requested urine test. Shortly after providing sample, before results test were known, agreed take administered examiner. examiner, "indicated when denied joining Force.1 3 On April 30, unaccountably failed appear could base. He absent without leave until May 13, Iowa patrolman arrested following routine traffic stop held return later learned urinalysis methamphetamine. 4 charges failing go appointed place duty, wrongfully absenting himself base 13 days, and, unrelated matter, uttering 17 insufficient funds checks. testified behalf, relying "innocent ingestion'' theory while working OSI. cross-examination, prosecution attempted impeach inconsistencies between earlier statements made 5 sought drugs. motion, provides, part: 6 " Notwithstanding provision law, examination, reference offer take, failure taking shall admitted into evidence.'' 7 determined because "the President may, through Rules Evidence, determine area fact finder needs help, process sufficient acceptability relevant.''2 App. 28. further reasoned factfinder might give undue weight examiner's testimony, collateral arguments about such consume "an inordinate amount expense.'' Ibid. 8 counts sentenced bad-conduct discharge, confinement 30 months, total forfeiture pay allowances, reduction lowest enlisted grade. affirmed material respects, explaining "does arbitrarily limit ability 41 683, 691 (1995) (en banc). 9 By 3-to-2 vote, 442 (1996). Without pointing particular language Amendment, [a] rebut attack credibility, . defense.'' Id., 445.3 Judge Crawford, dissenting, stressed absolute, can excluded valid reasons, supported number justifications. 449-451. granted certiorari, 520 ----, 117 1817, 137 1026 (1997), we now reverse. II 10 unlimited, rather restrictions.4 See Taylor Illinois, 484 400, 410, 108 646, 653-654, 98 798 (1988); 37 (1987); 295, 1045-1046, 297 (1973). presenting may thus ""bow process.''' 2711 (quoting Chambers, 1046); accord Michigan Lucas, 500 145, 149, 111 1743, 1746, 114 205 (1991). As result, trials. 2711; accordLucas, 151, 1747. 2712-2713; 302, 1049; 22-23, 1924-1925, 1019 (1967). 11 several These include introduced trial, preserving jury's role determining avoiding litigation primary purpose trial.5 neither nor promoting these ends. Nor defendant our 12 governments unquestionably presented trier Indeed, unreliable principal objective many evidentiary rules. Fed. Evid. 702; 802; 901; see also Daubert Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 579, 589, 113 2786, 2794-2795, 125 469 (1993). contentions dissent notwithstanding, reliable. To day, remains reliability techniques. D. Faigman, Kaye, M. Saks, & J. Sanders, Modern Scientific 565, n. 14-2.0, §14-3.0 (1997); P. Giannelli E. Imwinkelried, §8-2(C), pp. 225-227 (2d ed.1993) (hereinafter Imwinkelried); Strong, McCormick §206, p. 909 (4th ed.1992) McCormick). Some studies concluded tests overall accurate S. Abrams, Complete Polygraph Handbook 190-191 (1968) (reporting accuracy rate laboratory involving common "control technique'' "in range percent''). Others assess truthfulness less accurately-that field suggest "little better than obtained toss coin,'' is, 50 percent. Iacono Lykken, Status Research Techniques: Case Against Tests, §14-5.3, 629 Lykken).6 14 lack reflected disagreement among concerning both admissibility evidence.7 Although some Federal Courts Appeal abandoned leaving its admission discretion district Daubert, see, Posado, 57 F.3d 428, 434 (C.A.5 1995); Cordoba, 104 225, 228 (C.A.9 1997), least Circuit recently reaffirmed ban, Sanchez, 118 192, 197 (C.A.4 another noted "not decided polygraphy reached admissible.'' Messina, 131 36, 42 (C.A.2 1997). Most maintain Porter, 241 Conn. 92-95, 698 A.2d 739, 758-759 People Gard, 158 Ill.2d 191, 202-204, 198 Ill.Dec. 415, 421, 632 N.E.2d 1026, 1032 (1994); re Odell, 672 457, 459 (R.I.1996) (per curiam); Perkins State, 902 S.W.2d 88, 94-95 (Ct.App.Tex.1995). New Mexico unique making generally admissible prior stipulation parties significant restriction. N.M. §11-707.8 Whatever their approach, continue express doubt 42; 434; 126-127, A.2d, 774; 94; N.E.2d, 1032; 459. 15 approach taken adopting 707-excluding trials-is rational proportional means advancing barring degree depend variety identifiable factors, way know conclusion accurate, certain doubts uncertainties plague best exams. Individual jurisdictions reasonably reach differing conclusions should admitted. cannot say, then, widespread uncertainty, acted disproportionately promulgating B 16 It equally clear second governmental interest: Preserving core function determinations premise system jury lie detector.'' Barnard, 490 F.2d 907, 912 1973) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 416 959, 94 1976, 40 310 (1974). Determining witness therefore, been "part every [that] belongs jury, who presumed fitted natural intelligence practical knowledge men ways men.'' Aetna Life Ins. Co. Ward, 140 76, 720, 724-725, L.Ed. 371 (1891). nature, diminish determinations. form measures physiological responses set questions asked then interprets correlates anxiety offers witness-often, case, accused-was deceptive answering matters §206.9 Unlike witnesses testify outside jurors' knowledge, analysis fingerprints, ballistics, DNA crime scene, supply opinion, addition own, telling truth. Jurisdictions, legitimately concerned risk juries will excessive opinions polygrapher, clothed expertise times offering, ultimate aura infallibility attending lead jurors abandon duty guilt. Those account determine, ruling admit likely influence unduly. For within prerogative promulgate excludes C third served over issues guilt innocence prolongs trials threatens distract central innocence. Allowing proffers inevitably entail assessments control appropriate, qualified properly interpreted responses, factors countermeasures employed examinee distorted exam results. required each case.10 offends principle conclude appropriate. Because nature collateral, prohibiting it.11 D 19 precedents relied, those here. 20 defendant, killing she eyewitness, allegedly able remember having her memory hypnotically refreshed. U.S., 46, 2706. Arkansas refreshed unable facts, including accidental. 47-49, 2706-2708. violated "right defense,'' deprived scene firsthand facts. 2712. defense-an deemed particularly significant, target prosecution. 2709-2710. reason, stated ought allowed "to events words.'' 21 statutes involved prevented co-defendants co-participants precluded accomplice's accomplice committed crime. 16-17, 1921-1922. reversing Washington's conviction, [the accused] put stand physically mentally capable personally observed.'' 1925.12 22 due violation combined application Mississippi's law "voucher rule,'' party impeaching witness, hearsay persons whom confessed. 1049. specifically confined "facts circumstances'' case; "signal diminution traditionally accorded establishment implementation procedures.'' proposition fair opportunity defend whenever favorable 23 require invalidated, because, unlike cases, Here, perspective accused, evidence.13 Rather, members. impaired 24 25 foregoing 26 ordered. 27 BREYER join, judgment. 28 I join II-D Court. 29 my view decide observe, does, various "may admitted.'' Ante, __. continuing, good-faith experts counsels against invalidating refused examination. If accept position, course, bind courts, well courts. Given ongoing debate polygraphs, agree unconstitutional. doubt, though, wise, more compelling introduction does. Though considerable given admitting mandate, 587, 2793-2794, (1993), tension today. And, STEVENS points out, much inconsistency Government's extensive polygraphs make vital security argument stressing inaccuracy tests. 31 With respect, moreover, seems overreaches rests additional ground diminished hears am substantial agreement STEVENS' observation demeans mistakes competence deciding Post, last says unwise allow hear "a trial.'' thought tired deserved repose categorical exclusion. 704(a) states: "Except provided subdivision (b), inference otherwise objectionable embraces fact.'' Advisory Committee's Notes state: 32 "The older often contained strictures allowing issues, aspect opinions. unduly restrictive, difficult application, deprive useful information. Wigmore §§1920, 1921; §12. basis usually assigned rule, prevent "usurping province jury,' aptly characterized "empty rhetoric.' §1920, 17.'' 704, U.S.C., 888. 33 convincing contradicting rationale 704 considered reasons Committee recited adoption. 34 attempt revive outmoded especially inapt context justice system; exception abolition still surviving omitted corresponding adopted military. follows: "No mental condition constituting element thereto. alone.'' 704(b). 36 drafting committee renounced remnant. said: statutory qualifications reduce influenced presentation psychiatric experts.'' Manual Courts-Martial, States, Analysis A22-48 (1995 ed.). Any supposed need protect specific acknowledgment misled confused testimony. Neither say lingering usurping responsibility issues. dissenting. 38 June, 1991, promulgated Evidence. Had member Court, first requiring brief argue antecedent Article 36(a) Uniform Code Justice, U.S.C. §836(a). presently advised, persuaded violate statute invalid reason. contrary serious undervaluation importance citizen's charge unrealistic appraisal undergird Rule. Before discussing issue, comment briefly question. 39 blanket exclusion.1 No matter how probative be, categorically denies persuade received purpose. if stipulate advance detector admitted, requires ingestion''; conducted 7, correctly indicated ingest substance, claims unaware fact. days later, constitute physical consistent inconsistent tended confirm Under urinalysis, weaker stronger inadmissible. discredited reasoning 75 years ago, Frye 54 D.C. 293 F. 1013 (1923), anomalous result non-military recent years, repudiated Frye's engaged rejecting once-popular inadmissible.2 Well concluding, consistently decisions General Electric Joiner, 522 512, 139 508 wisely judges exercise evaluating evidence.3 observe recognized civil contain prohibition modern trend 1987 "entitled lay'' foundation Gipson, 246, 253 (1987). responded Gipson 707. governing authorized "which shall, far considers practicable, apply principles courts.'' §836(a).4 Thus, concerns warrant special tribunals, gives ample authority account. 43 counterpart either Procedure. extent plays establishment, practices structured detectors civilian sector society. That carefully regulates administration ensure maintains "very stringent standards examiners''5 established Institute, "generally training facility examiners States.''6 hundreds thousands routinely uses wide official decisions.7 adoption rely concern. They invoke interests: (1) evidence; (2) protecting being unwarranted assumption near infallibility''; (3) debates 45 pose context. Disputes examiners, equipment, procedures seldom arise surely reason assume personnel perform fact-finding competent ordinary results, relevance issues.8 justifies President's promulgation burdensome defendants applicable civilians. 46 It, fairly comply statute. rest ground, briefing me change views, 47 barely acknowledges person necessary point "any Amendment,'' ante, __, firmly established. appropriate Government relies justify 48 provides enjoy compulsory obtaining favor.'' "is essential attribute adversary itself,'' repeatedly few rights "are defense.''9 According Joseph Story, included Bill Rights reaction notorious common-law treason felony cases.10 Our (1967), rested premises plain terms defense'' law.''11 Consistent history provision, "whole categories'' presumption unreliability unconstitutional.12 49 inadmissibility Texas covered alleged accomplices. Both decision, potential injustice produced exclude entire categories potentially unreliable. At interested defendants,13 spouses,14 co-conspirators15 witnesses. "Nor named grounds stand; conviction crime, want religious belief, sufficient. presumably honest, appreciating sanctity oath, unaffected free temptations interest. afraid trust jurors.'' Benson 146 325, 336, 60, 63-64, 991 (1892). regime unless met "general acceptance'' Over category category, strict replaced broaden instructed evaluate weight. While rulemaking non-constitutional judicial decisions, direction manifested holdings well. Commenting followed decision Benson, 1918 observed 51 "years elapsed Case, disposition legislative bodies remove disabilities continued, shows going forward before, dominance truth arrived hearing understanding seem credit court, incompetent, come widely, almost universally, accepted country Great Britain.'' Rosen 245 467, 471, 148, 150, 62 406 (1918). 52 Funk 290 371, 377-378, 212, 213-214, 78 369 (1933). disqualification spousal Stewart stated: "Any impedes discovery doing justice.'' Hawkins 358 74, 81, 79 136, 140, (1958) (Stewart, concurring). 53 seriously impede truth, "as justice,'' "meaningful complete guaranteed Constitution, Crane Kentucky, 476 690, 106 2142, 2146, 90 636 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).16 1049, (1973), "where directly affecting ascertainment implicated, applied mechanistically defeat ends justice.''17 notes today, "defendant's evidence,'' must admonition (1987), Applying Arkansas' "State's extend individual case.'' 61, 2714. statement case. III requirement proportionate obviously sides balance. Today ignores strength cases. illustrate, quite wrong assuming impact "factual evidence'' conveying "his members.'' __-__. reasoning, alibi himself. But strong outcome-an presumptively untrustworthy law-his uncorroborated persuasive third-party witness. bars "from credibility,'' ibid., impairs defense''; indeed, sure outcome-determinative 55 just independent available strongly supports ingestion.'' Just flight "consciousness guilt'' sometimes relevant, occasions innocence'' answers propounded manifestations utterances, innocent mind shortly ingested Dean Wigmore's view, "conduct'' "utterances'' innocence.''18 Second held, dispute "basic [that defendant] wrongdoing,'' "critical adjudication charges.''19 equated encumbering record cumulative affected outcome "infringed accused.'' 56 question, powerful enough unfair Reliability host 85% 90%.20 critics lower, cited 70%.21 errs, shown find people guilty vice versa.22 exculpatory polygraphs-like case-are inculpatory ones. 58 Of variation validity relevance23 Questions integrity, independence, questions, detection deliberate attempts provoke misleading addressed proceedings; fall short justifying type 59 legal satisfy admissible. Expert "future dangerousness'' eligibility death penalty, "most time,'' Barefoot Estelle, 463 880, 898-901, 103 3383, 3397-3399, 77 1090 (1983). Studies indicate handwriting analysis, fingerprint identifications, trustworthy cases.24 highly dubious eyewitness tested crucible cross-examination. reliance justification reveals "overly pessimistic capabilities generally. Vigorous careful instruction burden proof traditional attacking shaky 596, 2798.25 Role Jury 60 tends consciousness assistance Wigmore: 61 "Let whole conduct in; tells innocence, let us what worth, remembering open varying explanations emphasized. Let person, falsely sense draws manifestations.'' Wigmore, §293, 232 (J. Chadbourn rev. ed.1979). "juries expertise,'' guided instructions lay follow court's instructions, Richardson Marsh, 481 200, 211, 1702, 1709, 95 176 applies Common suggests disinterested determination assist impair deliberations. fear average reflects distressing confidence American.26 Collateral Litigation 63 proceedings manifestly predicate always rise searching critical meaningful illusion. 64 incongruous selected procedures, complain examinee's proving conducted. objecting questioning obvious position challenge developed 65 integrity pursuant resolving examined him, successfully completed program27 unqualified. prescribing minimum admissible,28 blunderbuss issue.29 IV 66 narrower respond concerns. plainly prohibits be. Accordingly, respectfully dissent. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. questions: "Since you've [Air Force], you illegal drugs?''; "Have lied information OSI?''; "Besides your parents, told anyone you're assisting OSI?'' answered "no'' 12. authorizes President, Commander Chief Forces, Const., Art. II, §2, courts: "Pretrial, post-trial modes proof, prescribed regulations cites Amendment's Compulsory Process Clause supporting claim. contends "combined effect'' Fifth Amendments confers 2146-2147, (citations omitted), turn encompasses words "defendant'' "jury'' throughout nonmilitary specifically, "court,'' "court members,'' "court-martial'' throughout, term, "accused,'' "defendant.'' interests, others, drafters justified grounds: ascertain adjudge usurped; danger confusion ""could degenerating machine;''' waste issues; ""reliability established.''' 686 (A.F. Ct.Crim.App.1995) (citing App., A22-A46 (1994 ed.)). 1983 Congress' Technology Assessment evaluated ""[o]verall, research investigations, detects deception chance, error rates significant.''' Brief Congress, Assessment, Validity Testing: Review Evaluation-A Technical Memorandum (OTA-TM-H-15, 1983)). Respondent, current percent time. Matte, Forensic Psychophysiology Using Polygraph, 121-129 (1996)). Even basic technology itself resolved, controversy efficacy countermeasures, deliberately strategies employ obscure readings "fool'' machine Lykken §14-3.0. Until recently, uniform forth (App.D.C.1923), gain acceptance superseded Prior obstacle rule. Bashor Risley, 730 1228, 1238(CA9), 838, 105 137, 83 (1984); Price, Cal.4th 324, 419-420, Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 159, 821 P.2d 610, 663 (1991), 506 851, 152, 121 102 (1992). Nothing foreclosed, exclusionary types odd inversion hierarchy laws altering interpreting worked meaning Constitution. argues Government-and Department Defense-routinely testing, consider Governmental tests, primarily screening, lesser tool 34, 17; Barland, Test USA Elsewhere, 76 (A. Gale ed.1988). limited, out techniques differ character from, carry severe consequences than, invalidate 707's ban. examinee, blood pressure, perspiration, respiration, asking series commonly categories: direct accusatory investigation, irrelevant neutral "control'' wrongdoing general. forms subject's comparing reactions questions. Imwinkelried 219-222; Honts Quick, 1995: Progress Science Law, 71 N.D.L.Rev. 987, 990-992 (1995). laid skill polygrapher exam, cross-examination occur "merely remove[d] admissibility'' wishes proffer 446 (1996), implicitly principled whereby derived narrowly contained. addition, burdened 1924-1925. suffers defects. suggests, post, __-__, raw exam-the pulse, perspiration rates-may data, were, "facts'' hand. truthful accused-just here-from itself, same polygrapher's interpretation ""the conduct,''' referred. "accused's conduct'' all, actual issue. surrounding spoke truthfully deceptively occasion. states, "Notwithstanding Mil. 707(a). gained increasingly tool. advances achieved led greater coupled swayed disallowing longer warranted believe balances unfairly prejudicial.'' Piccinonna, 885 1529, 1535 (C.A.11 1989). [W]e examinations scientifically fact, admissibility, based antiquated concepts technical precepts expressly overruled Court.'' 1995). unstipulated "flexible inquiry' Daubert. evident Frye, 227 Pretrial, arising chapter triable courts-martial, commissions inquiry, chapter.'' Defense's 1996 Report Congress: Defense examiners. Institute's program known curriculum forensic psychophysiology, conceptual, abstract, meet requirements master's degree-level study. Candidates positions requirements: "1.Be citizen. "2.Be age. "3.Be graduate accredited four-year college equivalent experience demonstrates master graduate-level academic courses. "4.Have two investigator enforcement agency "5.Be high moral sound emotional temperament, confirmed background investigation. "6.Complete Defense-approved instruction. "7.Be adjudged suitable candidate realizes, sensitive to, personal "All receive Institute. After completing training, DoD serve internship consisting six months on-the-job-training supervision certified 80 hours continuing education years.'' Program, Annual Fiscal Year 1996, 14-15; Yankee, Current Its Application Psychophysiological Detection Deception, Sciences Perry, Admissibility: Changes Challenges, Law Human Behavior 357, 359, (1992) Perry). Between 1981 1997, 400,000 resolve counterintelligence, security, investigations. 1; 1995, 1994, 1993, A; A-1 1981-1991). When officers, true typically service. §825(d)(2); also, Carter, 771, 776 (A.C.M.R.1986). Few defense, itself. compel witness' courtroom embrace grounded .'' 408-409, 652-653, (1988). famous Commentaries all. absolute abolished England 1787, Framers felt provide prosecution's, jury.'' 19-20, 1923-1924, (1967) (footnotes omitted). witnesses, attendance, necessary, prosecution's lies. confront challenging law.'' 19, 1923. priori presume them unworthy belief. disqualifying behalf defended rationally sets apart group commit perjury.'' 22, 1925. familiar old record, result; extended Fear perjury rule.'' 335, 63, date controlling country, husband wife incompetent other. '' underlying th[e] [of spouse's other] practice Widespread disqualifications interest, accordance permitted left Certainly, uniformly good spouses original gone too.'' 75-76, 138, (1958). 20-21, 1923-1924. Whether rooted Due Fourteenth [410 (1973)], Confrontation clauses (1967); Davis Alaska, 415 308, 1105, 347 (1974), guarantees defense.' California Trombetta, 467 [479, 485, 2528, 2532, 81 (1984)]; cf. Strickland 466 668, 684-685, 2052, 2062-2063, 674 (1984) ("The Clauses, defines largely provisions Amendment'). break new observing component procedural fairness heard. Oliver, 333 257, 273, 68 499, 507-508, 92 682 (1948); Grannis Ordean, 234 385, 394, 779, 783, 1363 (1914). empty competent, bearing confession claim absence justification, kind deprives prosecutor's encounter "survive adversarial testing.' Cronic, 648, 656, 2039, 2045, 657 (1984). 1924-1925.'' 690-691, (1986). Webb 409 95, 351, 330 (1972); 1923, (1948). right, procedure assure perhaps respected frequently hearsay, exceptions tailored existed. rejected here bore assurances trustworthiness declarations Chambers' circumstances, occasionally avail favor-in particular, indicating utterances asserting , sedition charges, loyal 1A §56.1, 1180 (Tillers ed.1983); Reifsteck, 841 701, 705 (C.A.6 1988). Mariotta's Wedtech, victim machinations sophisticated businessmen brought company handle financial affairs. most drawing "With accusations challenged, response obtain immunity implicating others became "Where mind, excluded, hesitated order Biaggi, 662, 691-692 1990); Bucur, 194 (C.A.7 1952); Herman 479 1931). Raskin, Honts, Kircher, 572 (D. eds.1997) Faigman) (compiling eight mean approximately 90%); 575 four studies, scored 90.5%); Response Professors Faigman 627 97.5%); (1989) inconclusive 87%). 608 70%). 608-609; 621; Perry 362; Handbook, 187-188, 191. Gonzalez's attention inquiry remand Piccinonna. 729 F.Supp. 1336 (S.D.Fla.1990). One study compared fingerprinting, identification. consisted volunteers divided groups 4. Fingerprints samples participants. four, randomly "perpetrator.'' perpetrator envelope building doorkeeper (who knew identify perpetrator), sign receipt, pick up package. "crime,'' participants fingerprinting (comparing fingerprints envelope), signed receipt), (analyzing tests) group. picture pictures. demonstrate compares favorably Excluding "inconclusive'' resolved 100% correctly, 95% 94% 64% correctly. Interestingly, included, methods: 90% expert, 35% 20% expert. Widacki Horvath, An Experimental Investigation Relative Utility Technique Three Other Methods Identification, 596-600 (1978); 365. learn polygraph, possibility undermines reliability. example, availability book called "Beat Box: Insider's Guide Outwitting Lie Detector.'' Tr. Oral Arg. 53; 25, 10. Box,'' actually cuts ban preface "Dr. Kalashnikov author] professional. someone like he'll probably catch game. That's knows book. "What don't realize lot professional there. It's possible run week (and Christmas bonus) precision ..... "Remember, adage can't beat operator. gleefully dedicated idea sporting chance.'' V. Kalashnikov, Beat Detector (1983) (preface); (" [W]hile unbeatable, examiner''). Box'' notion trained examiner-like Nonetheless, "countermeasures'' fool polygraph. Mental Physical Countermeasures Reduce Accuracy Applied Psychology 252 (1994). possibility, First, indicates individuals (i.e., alone enough). Hodes, Effects Physiological 70 177, 185 (1985); Spontaneous Police Administration 91, (1988) (spontaneous ineffective). Second, discovered, polygraphers develop detect countermeasures. Abrams Davidson, Counter-Countermeasures Testing, 16, 17-19 577-578. "blindly'' instead weigh along Cavoukian Heslegrave, Admissibility Court: Empirical Findings, 117, 123, 127-128, 130 (1980) Heslegrave); 366-367. limits "completely eliminated effect jury. Heslegrave 128-129 added). 5, supra. §11-707. suggested adduced prosecutor dictated vindicates summon above, event, future developments implicated nothing fundamentally permitting prove

Category: 0