Court Opinion

ID: 9635685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:59:33.137808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:32.686901
License: Public Domain

*160MANDERINO, Justice
(concurring).
I join in the opinion of Mr. Justice Pomeroy except for certain implications arising from that opinion’s references to polygraph examinations. References to the administration of a polygraph examination by the police in our opinions are necessary to give a complete picture of the chronology of events, but in no way indicate an approval of the use of polygraph examinations results for evidentiary purposes or for any other purpose.
The majority implies that because the appellant consented, the two hours spent taking the polygraph examination is to be excluded from consideration. A polygraph examination, however, is nothing more than additional interrogation: interrogation during which an ex-aminee is connected to a machine. Interrogation is interrogation regardless of what it’s called. A person’s consent to being wired while interrogated is as irrelevant as a person’s consent to being seated or consent to walk to a particular room for interrogation purposes.
Therefore, I cannot agree that the two hours of interrogation to which the appellant was subjected during the polygraph examination should be excluded from consideration when determining whether or not the confession was voluntarily uttered.
ROBERTS, J., joins in this concurring opinion.