Court Opinion

ID: 9462254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:36:26.955791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:29.975343
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
In my view, the colloquy set forth in footnote 5 of the majority opinion demonstrates rather clearly that the trial court conditioned the granting of the defendant’s motion for a polygraph examination on the requirement that the defendant agree that the government could offer the results of the examination in evidence if the results were unfavorable to the defendant. This was an inappropriate condition to impose, particularly in the light of the comments of this Court set forth in footnote 3 of the majority opinion. The trial court could have made its position clear by stating that the polygraph examination would have been made available even if the defendant did not consent in advance to the results of that examination being used against him if the results were unfavorable.
I do not find myself in disagreement with the views expressed by my colleagues on the other issues in this case.