Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
I lost the actual decision when I sent the original. :( So I added it
on here.
Sue
>
> Hi Terry:
>
> I thought that this one would interest you. Sue
>
> UNITED STATES v. SCHEFFER
>
> No. 96-1133 -- Argued November 3, 1997
> -- Decided March 31, 1998
> 44 M.J. 442, reversed.
> < http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1133.cpanel.html >
> =============================================================
>
> A polygraph examination of respondent airman indicated, in the
> opinion of the Air Force examiner administering the test, that
> there was "no deception" in respondent's denial that he had used
> drugs since enlisting. Urinalysis, however, revealed the presence
> of methamphetamine, and respondent was tried by general court-
> martial for using that drug and for other offenses. In denying
> his motion to introduce the polygraph evidence to support his
> testimony that he did not knowingly use drugs, the military judge
> relied on Military Rule of Evidence 707, which makes polygraph
> evidence inadmissible in court-martial proceedings. Respondent
> was convicted on all counts, and the Air Force Court of Criminal
> Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
> reversed, holding that a per se exclusion of polygraph evidence
> offered by an accused to support his credibility violates his
> Sixth Amendment right to present a defense.
>
> Held: The judgment is reversed.
>
> 44 M.J. 442, reversed.
JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to
Parts I, II-A, and II-D, concluding that Military Rule of
Evidence 707 does not unconstitutionally abridge the right of
accused members of the military to present a defense. Pp. 4-9,
11-14. (a) A defendant's right to present relevant evidence is
subject to reasonable restrictions to accommodate other
legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. See, e.g.,
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 55. State and federal rulemakers
therefore have broad latitude under the Constitution to establish
rules excluding evidence. Such rules do not abridge an accused's
right to present a defense so long as they are not "arbitrary" or
"disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve."
E.g., id., at 56 . This Court has found the exclusion of
evidence to be unconstitutionally arbitrary or disproportionate
only where it has infringed upon a weighty interest of the accused.
See, e.g., id., at 58. Rule 707 serves the legitimate interest of
ensuring that only reliable evidence is introduced. There is simply
no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable: The scientific
community and the state and federal courts are extremely
polarized on the matter. Pp. 4-9. (b) Rule 707 does not implicate
a sufficiently weighty interest of the accused to raise a
constitutional concern under this Court's precedents. The three
cases principally relied upon by the Court of Appeals, Rock,
supra, at 57, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23, and Chambers
v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302-303, do not support a right to
introduce polygraph evidence, even in very narrow circumstances.
The exclusions of evidence there declared unconstitutional
significantly undermined fundamental elements of the accused's
defense. Such is not the case here, where the court members heard
all the relevant details of the charged offense from respondent's
perspective, and Rule 707 did not preclude him from introducing
any factual evidence, but merely barred him from introducing
expert opinion testimony to bolster his own credibility.
Moreover, in contrast to the rule at issue in Rock, supra, at
52, Rule 707 did not prohibit respondent from testifying on his
own behalf; he freely exercised his choice to convey his version
of the facts at trial. Pp. 11-14. THOMAS, J., announced the
judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with
respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-D, in which REHNQUIST, C.J.,
and O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER,
JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II-B and II-
C, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and SCALIA and SOUTER, JJ.,
joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment, in which O'CONNOR, GINSBURG, and
BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
> Two rules in life:
>
> 1. Don't tell people everything you know.
> 2.
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
