Court Opinion

ID: 9544530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:56:35.627401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:08.046284
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting). I would affirm the court of appeals’ decision and hold that it was error for the circuit court to admit the poly-grapher’s testimony. I so conclude because this case is governed by Schlise and because the admission of the polygrapher’s testimony violates the state and federal constitutional guarantees of right to counsel and due process.
In State v. Schlise, 86 Wis.2d 26, 271 N.W.2d 619 (1978), this court addressed the question of the admission of a polygrapher’s testimony and held inadmissible, in the absence of a Stanislawski stipulation, “not only the polygraph evidence and the examiner’s opinion of the significant conclusions to be drawn therefrom, but also his testimony concerning the post-mechanical interview.” Schlise, supra, 86 Wis.2d at 42.1 Schlise did *297not establish a blanket rule rendering inadmissible testimony concerning all post-mechanical interviews; after Schlise, as before, testimony about interviews “totally discrete from the mechanical examination which precedes them” remains admissible.
The court’s rationale in Schlise for exclusion of this evidence under Stanislawski was an acknowledgment of the inseverability of the post-mechanical interview and the mechanical portion of the polygraph. The interview and the mechanical testing, when closely related in time and content, must be considered as one event. Thus if there is no Stanislawski stipulation allowing the mechanical test results to be introduced into evidence, there can be no introduction into evidence of the post-mechanical interview. As the court explained: “The post-mechanical interview was so closely associated with the mechanical or electronic testing, both as to time and content, that it must be considered as one event and because of the lack of a Stanislawski stipulation excluded from the evidence.” Schlise, supra, 86 Wis.2d at 44.
Whether Schlise controls this case depends upon a comparison of the facts in the two cases and I conclude that the facts are substantially similar and that the salient characteristics of the Schlise rationale, closeness of time and content between interview and mechanical testing, are applicable to the pre-mechanical interview in the case at bar.
*298In the instant case the interview preceded the mechanical testing which was scheduled but never given.2 Whether the interview is pre-mechanical or post-mechanical should make no difference to the result of the case. Admission or exclusion under Sehlise depends not on whether the interview precedes or succeeds the mechanical testing but on whether the interview and mechanical testing are “one unified procedure.” Schlise, supra, 86 Wis.2d at 43. In Sehlise the court, relying on the polygraph examiner’s (Anderson’s) testimony, recognized that the post-mechanical interview is part of the polygraph examination. Schlise, 86 Wis.2d at 42, 43. If we are to rely again on Anderson’s testimony, we must conclude that the pre-mechanical interview is an integral part of the polygraph examination. The exchange between defense counsel and Anderson at the trial reveals that Anderson in the instant case considered the “mechanical” test and the preceding interview to be two parts of one unified procedure. Anderson testified in the instant case that “there’s no way you can separate the pretest interview from the examination and the post-test examination, they are all one.” (Transcript p. 327) In Schlise the court said “The ‘mechanical’ part of the test was preceded by a lengthy pre-test interview assumed by all parties to be part of the polygraph examination.” Schlise, 86 Wis.2d at 42-43.
In both Sehlise and in the instant case the defendant assumed that the interview was part of the polygraph examination. In both Sehlise and in the instant case Anderson shared and confirmed defendant’s assumption that the interview was part of the mechanical test.
*299This case, like Schlise, is distinguishable on its facts from Turner v. State, 76 Wis.2d 1, 250 N.W.2d 706 (1977), and McAdoo v. State, 65 Wis.2d 596, 223 N.W.2d 521 (1974). In the Turner case Turner took an inconclusive polygraph test with Anderson and then, six days later, refused to take a second test. After refusing the second test, Turner nevertheless agreed to talk with Anderson and confessed. In the MeAdoo case “the interview [with Anderson] followed the test almost directly. However, this court in MeAdoo at 603, made the specific determination that it appeared from the record that the test was over, that defendant was informed the test was over, and that he was freely conversing with the examiner.” Schlise, 86 Wis.2d at 42. Turner’s and McAdoo’s interviews with Anderson were discrete from the polygraph and those defendants knew Anderson’s questioning was not part of the mechanical test. Schlise’s and Barrera’s interviews with Anderson were related to a mechanical test and the defendants thought the interview was part of the test.
The majority opinion apparently takes the position that because the mechanical test was never given on April 4, the April 4 interview cannot be viewed as having a close association in time and content with a mechanical test. The majority’s conclusion that the April 4 interview was “discrete” and separate from a mechanical test is contradicted by the record. Anderson testified that the interview he conducted with the defendant on April 4 was an integral part of the polygraph test that the defendant had agreed to take and that Anderson had agreed to give. Anderson, the defendant and defense counsel all considered the interview a part of the mechanical test. Had the mechanical test been given on April 4 it is clear that under Schlise the pre-me-chanical interview, the first step of and an integral part of the mechanical test, could not be admitted in evidence. *300That the defendant was not given the mechanical test does not change the character of the pre-mechanical interview. The pre-mechanical interview in the instant case was a scheduled part of a polygraph examination and must be treated as such. Neither the rationale of Schlise nor the facts in this case provides a basis for distinguishing the Schlise case from this case. I conclude that the pre-mechanical interview, being an integral part of a polygraph examination, is inadmissible in the absence of a StanislawsM stipulation.
If the majority view is correct that Anderson’s April 4 interview was an interrogation, separate and distinct from the mechanical polygraph test, I would exclude Anderson’s testimony on state and federal constitutional grounds.
Despite Anderson’s testimony as to the unity of the pre-mechanical interview with the mechanical examination, there is sufficient evidence in the record from which to conclude that Anderson, having given two prior inconclusive polygraph tests, had no intention of giving the defendant another polygraph examination on April 4 and that Anderson intended to use his time alone with the defendant to obtain a confession. The trial court, having heard the tape of the Anderson interview, recognized the interrogatory nature of Anderson’s interview, commenting “Now it’s true that the examination has more of the appearance on tape of police interrogation than it has by way of preparation for a polygraph examination . . . .” Although the tape is not part of the record in this court, the transcript of proceedings before the trial court gives us a flavor of the interview and supports the trial court’s characterization of the interview as an interrogation, not a pre-mechanical interview. Defense counsel elicited the following testimony from Anderson which showed Anderson’s intent to get a confession:
*301“Q. [Counsel] I understand that but during that 45 minutes that you were with Mr. Barrera were you preparing for the test or were you trying to obtain a confession ?
“A. [Anderson] I was setting the proper psychological set for the examination of Mr. Barrera. Before I started that test I wanted Mr. Barrera to be aware of what Mr. Garcia’s examination results were.
“Q. Did that take 45 minutes to explain too?
“A. Once I made him aware of it I could sense Mr. Barrera was in the position of being ready to confess and I pursued that.
“Q. Isn’t that a kind of subterfuge then that’s worked upon the defendant and his attorney when we think we are going to be prepared for and administered a polygraph test and yet in your mind that isn’t the case at all ?
“A. That’s not true. I came here to administer a polygraph examination to Mr. Barrera. I also came here to [elicit] a confession from him if Mr. Barrera was untruthful.” (Transcript pp. 328-29.)
Anderson’s use of the April 4 interview to obtain a confession was duplicitous. Anderson, after having conducted two examinations, suggested the third examination (Transcript p. 325). Defendant and defense counsel agreed to a third examination. They had every reason to think that a third polygraph examination would be conducted in a manner similar to the other two.
The first two tests had been conducted in Madison. Defense counsel watched both testings through two-way mirrors and could have interrupted the tests by tapping on the window. The April 4 interview was conducted in Juneau, and counsel could not view the test. There was no two-way mirror and Anderson testified that he would not allow counsel in the testing room during the interview or test.3 On April 4 counsel had to trust the *302examiner to conduct the examination as he had in the past and in the manner which had been previously explained to the defendant and counsel.
Prior to the other tests Anderson had explained to the defendant and the defense counsel various facets of the pre-mechanical interview and the test. Anderson testified in this case that he had explained the significance of the pre-test interview to defendant and counsel and had conducted pre-test interviews with the defendant in the March 7 and March 17 polygraph sessions. Although part of Anderson’s pre-test interview is, as he testified, “obtaining . . . admissions or full confessions,” Anderson further testified that he had not explained this facet of the pre-mechanical interview to the defendant or defense counsel. I cannot help but wonder whether it is proper for a polygrapher to interrogate the subject in a pre-mechanical interview to obtain a confession if the polygrapher’s goal is to obtain a valid mechanical test. Reid and Inbau, in their text Truth and Deception: The Polygraph (“Lie-Detector”) Technique (1966), disavow the use of a pre-mechanical interview to obtain a confession, explaining:
“At no time during the pretest interview should the examiner indulge in any interrogation aimed at determining the subject’s deception or truthfulness, or at obtaining a confession of guilt. The only exception to this rule is where the subject clearly evidences a desire to confess before the test.
“A subject who is accused by the examiner of committing the act or offense under investigation, or who *303is interrogated as though he is already considered responsible for it is no longer a suitable subject for a polygraph test by that examiner. If he is a truthful subject, he may become so disturbed by the accusation or interrogation that he will display deception reactions on the test or else the Polygraph tracings will be too distorted to permit a diagnosis of deception or truthfulness.
“Throughout the pretest interview the examiner’s attitude should be completely objective and noncommital; he must be thoroughly impartial as to the subject’s deception or truthfulness. To adopt any other attitude will place the examiner in the role of an interrogator rather than that of interviewer and examiner. Only after the test is completed, and only after the results have indicated deception, should the examiner embark upon any form of accusation or interrogation for the purpose of obtaining an admission.” Id. at 11-13. (Emphasis in original.)
In any event, on April 4 the defendant had come to talk to Anderson in connection with a polygraph test, not to participate in a general interrogation outside the presence of defense counsel. On April 4, prior to the interview, the defendant signed a Crime Laboratory Bureau standard printed form entitled Statement of Consent. By signing the statement the defendant acknowledged that Anderson, a polygraph examiner of the Crime Bureau, was to administer a polygraph examination, that he had been read his Miranda rights, that he agreed to answer questions without an attorney present, that Anderson had explained the nature of the polygraph examination and that he was consenting to a polygraph examination.
Under the guise of administering a polygraph test, Anderson, an experienced polygraph operator, interrogated the defendant alone in a closed room. The operator deliberately engaged in a game of disguised objective. The operator was in control; he apparently tightened and loosened his tentacles seeking to solicit *304defendant’s admission of guilt and to avoid the defendant’s cry for counsel.4 Anderson obviously had no intention of giving a third polygraph examination that might prove inconclusive. Anderson’s goal was a confession, the defendant’s own incriminating words which Anderson would deliberately elicit outside the presence of counsel. The defendant was thus questioned in a manner and for a purpose contrary to the agreement of defendant and defense counsel.
I find it difficult to reconcile this court’s condoning the questioning in the instant case with the state and federal constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel. I believe the questioning in the instant case is condemned by Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 397-401 (1977), as a denial of the right to counsel. The defendant placed his trust in his lawyers who in turn placed their trust in the Wisconsin law enforcement authorities who agreed to conduct a polygraph examination, not to conduct an interrogation to elicit a confession outside the presence of counsel. “If, in the long run we are seriously concerned about the individual’s effective representation by counsel, the State cannot be permitted to dishonor its promise to this lawyer.” Brewer v. Williams, supra, 430 U.S. at 415 (J. Stevens concurring). See White, Police Trickery in Inducing Confessions, 127 U. Pa. L. Rev. 581, 602-608 (1979).
I also find it difficult to reconcile this court’s condoning the questioning in the instant case with basic concepts of fair play, that is, with the basic concepts of due process. Convicting the guilty is of utmost importance but so is maintaining respect for and public *305confidence in our government.5 Citizens should be able to rely upon government officials to abide by their word and to behave fairly. Defendant’s and defense counsel’s understanding with the government in this case was that a polygraph examination would be administered. The government should be held to its word. The government’s breach of its agreement in this case violates due process.
For the reasons set forth, I would affirm the decision of the court of appeals on the issue of the polygrapher’s testimony.
I am authorized to state that Justice Nathan S. Hef-fernan joins in this dissent.

 The majority opinion states that “The written stipulation issue was not the sole concern in Schlise regarding the decision to exclude the defendant’s statement in the post-test interview.” 99 Wis.2d at 286. The majority explains that the Schlise court “had serious doubts regarding the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession due to the psychologically coercive tactics of the examiner as detailed in the record.” I disagree with this analysis of Schlise. In excluding the post-mechanical interview the court did not consider whether Schlise’s statements to Anderson were voluntarily given. The court discussed the possible coercive aspect of Schlise’s interview in its discussion of remanding the case to consider whether Schlise’s later statements to police officers were tainted by the Anderson interview. The court said in Schlise:
“After Anderson’s testimony the court, out of hearing of the jury, explicitly found the statement of Schlise to Anderson was voluntarily given.
“We conclude that it was prejudicial error to receive the testimony of the polygraph examiner, Eobert Anderson, because a *297pre-examination stipulation as required by State v. Stanislawski, 62 Wis.2d 730, 216 N.W.2d 8 (1974), was not entered into by the parties.
“Because we have concluded that the statements made by the defendant to the polygraph operator in their entirety must be excluded from the evidence upon a new trial, the voluntariness of such statements need not be considered except to the extent they may have influenced the subsequent statements given by the defendant to the law enforcement officials.” Schlise, supra, 86 Wis.2d at 41, 42, 44.

 The only way we can say the April 4 interview was a post-mechanical interview is to consider it as coming after the March 7 or March 17 polygraph tests. The defendant does not so argue, and neither do I. It is interesting to note, however, that Anderson did consider the April 4 interview as a continuation of the March 17th testing. Anderson testified: “This [April 4] is a continuation of an examination, not a new examination.” Transcript p. 326.

 “Q. [Defense Counsel] A.nd one of your comments to me before the first one was if I recall correctly, if you want to interrupt this interview at any time you rap on the glass, isn’t that true ?
*302“A. [Anderson] That’s correct.
“Q. Didn’t have that opportunity here? You didn’t allow me to remain in the room ?
“A. No, I would not allow anyone to remain in the room during the polygraph testing.
“Q. But had we had the proper facilities I would have had the opportunity to rap on the window and stop the examination when I thought it ought to he stopped?
“A. Right.” (Transcript p. 334.)

 Anderson used techniques recommended in police manuals as effective interrogation methods, e.g., displaying understanding and sympathy by gestures as a pat on the body while urging the defendant to tell the truth and appealing to the defendant’s sense of morality and discussing God and religion if the defendant is religious. See Inbau & Reid, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions 59-61 (2d ed. 1967).

 Professor Inbau, a staunch advocate of effective police interrogation and an opponent of court rules which unduly tie the police’s hands in the war against crime, said in a speech to police officers:
“Too often there is the tendency on the part of the police to criticize all that the courts do — to label as technicalities the reasons given for any particular case decision that the individual police officer dislikes. There are times, to be sure, when that is true. But there are many times when the reasons are substantial and basically valid ....
“As a police officer you may feel that the courts should leave you alone in your efforts to enforce the law, to apprehend criminals and to protect the public. Many courts would also like to be left alone to do as they please. Many legislators would also like to be left alone and unchecked. Many members of the executive branch . . . would also like to function as they please. But in a democratic system, no branch of government, can be permitted to exercise unbridled authority and power. . . .
“In any democratic society individual rights and liberties must be preserved and we are willing to do so at the expense of efficiency in government itself. To relate this principle to your situation, let me put it this way. We would rather that some criminals escape detection and punishment — even though you, as a police officer, know positively he is guilty — rather than sacrifice or even jeopardize the rights and liberties of the great mass of individuals who make up this democratic society of ours. This concept is essential. It is different in Russia, of course. There, efficiency is paramount [emphasis added].” Inbau, unpublished *306address at Willamette College of Law, Salem, Ore., reprinted in Kamisar, Fred E. Inbau: “The Importance of Being Guilty”, 68 J. Crim. L. & C., 182, 193 n. 68 (1977).