Court Opinion

ID: 9580871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:09:48.603903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:34.580049
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
While concurring fully with the majority opinion, in reference to the use of the polygraph test, both the majority opinion’s and the appellant’s attorney’s use of the word “inconclusive” warrants further comment.
The writer generally subscribes to the use of the word “inconclusive” employed by Justice Jordan, when dissenting in State v. Chambers, 240 Ga. 76, 81 (239 SE2d 324) (1977): “There is simply no ‘lie detector,’ machine or human. The first recorded lie detector test was in ancient India where a suspect was required to enter a darkened room and touch the tail of a donkey. If the donkey brayed when his tail was touched the suspect was declared guilty, otherwise he was released. Modern science has substituted a metal electronic box for the donkey but the results remain just as haphazard and inconclusive.” (Emphasis supplied.)