Court Opinion

ID: 9747808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:36:44.468873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:27.381560
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Musmanno:
I quote from the Opinion of the lower Court in this case: “After the jury returned and entered its guilty verdict, the defendant protested his innocence so vehemently- that the trial judge suggested that the defendant be given a polygraph examination. The results of the tests did not reflect any evasion of the truth when he said he had not participated in the burglary and robbery. The district attorney, at time of sentence, reported that his staff had checked out all leads as to whom the other party could have been. All such leads returned them once again to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the polygraph test, defendant was guilty of committing the burglary with Jack G-ittlemacker.”
This is one more instance of the many that have come into the courts demonstrating the unreliability of the so-called lie-detecting machine. If its results may not be employed to argue for the innocence of the defendant, the machine should never be used to argue for the guilt of the defendant. In short, the polygraph test is a fanciful notion and should be treated as such.