Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Sue
Thanks for ferreting out pertinent info. for all of us. I am not sure I
read this right--my eyes might be biased <VBG>, but it seems the Supreme
court is not willing to accept the idea that the polygraph is admissible.
Am I correct in this??
jackief
Sue Hartigan wrote:
> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi Terry:
>
> 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
--
In the sociology room the children learn
that even dreams are colored by your perspective
I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
