Court Opinion

ID: 9667549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:48:52.685972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:38.836079
License: Public Domain

DAY, J.
(concurring). I concur in affirming the court of appeals in this case. I also agree that this Court should hold it to.be error to admit polygraph examination results for any purpose unless a Stanislawski stipulation was executed on or before September 1, 1981. The majority opinion is a-thorough survey of the present status of the polygraph both in courts and among technicians working with the various devices. I disagree, however, with the opinion’s conclusion that:
“. . . the court is not now prepared to say . . . that polygraph evidence is so unreliable that it cannot be admitted under any circumstances.” (Supra, p. 265, see also, pp. 233, 245, 254 and 278).
In McLemore v. State, 87 Wis.2d 739, 751, 275 N.W.2d 692, (1979), a minority of this court, (Connor T. Hansen, J., Callow, J., and I) said:
“The minority concludes that polygraphy in its present state may be useful as an investigative tool, but that its limitations and potential for misleading factfinders are such that it should not be part of evidentiary system.”
The problems of polygraphy pointed out in the majority opinion in the case at bar re-enforces the position of the minority in McLemore, supra. I affirm my position in McLemore.
I am authorized to state that Justice Callow and Justice Steinmetz join in this concurrence.