On 17 July 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in State v. Castagna et al. that the trial court erred in not permitting the defendants, who were charged for the killing of a bar patron, to present evidence that a prosecution witness, Violet Arias, had failed a polygraph examination administered by New Jersey State Police detective Laurent Gauthier. The Court ruled in relevant part:
We are convinced that the limitation placed on defendants’ right of cross-examination did not serve the interests of fairness and reliability. To be sure, the evidence that Arias failed her polygraph examination did not establish that defendants did not commit the crimes charged. However, the polygraph evidence was important to assist the factfinder in assessing the credibility of one of the State’s key witnesses. Unlike in McDavitt, here the reliability of the polygraph test results was not important. It was Arias’s belief that the polygraph test results revealed she had not told the truth in her second statement that was crucial. It was apparent that Arias believed she needed to change her story for the State to accept her statement and to agree to offer her a plea agreement. We hold that the trial court erred in denying defendants the right to cross-examine Arias concerning the polygraph test results, not because those results were reliable, but because the test results caused Arias to change her statement.
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Castagna et al. may be downloaded here (84kb PDF).
Associated Press writer Beth DeFalco reported on the decision in “Court ruling allows defendant’s use of polygraph results,” published by the Press of Atlantic City:
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) – A ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court to reinstate convictions in a murder case also grants defendants new latitude to cross-examine prosecution witnesses about polygraph tests, defense attorneys said Monday.
On Monday, the high court overturned an Appellate Division decision that granted a new trial to Thomas D’Amico and a co-defendant, Josephine Castagna.
The two were among seven people charged in the beating death of Bennett Grant, 37, an Elizabeth man who got into a fight with a group of customers at Sinner’s go-go bar on Oct. 24, 1999. The father of five lapsed into a coma after he was chased, kicked and beaten by the group and died five months later.
D’Amico, an Elizabeth patrolman who was off-duty when the beating occurred, and Castagna were convicted for their role in Grant’s death, but were granted a new trial when the Appellate Division found, among other grounds, that they were denied their right to cross-examine a prosecution witness on her polygraph test.
Polygraph test results are admissible in court only when the subject of the test and prosecutors agree in writing to allow it. Defendants were not previously allowed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses about the results of their polygraph tests.
Although the high court overturned the decision to grant a new trial, it did agree that defendants should be allowed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses about lie detector tests.
In D’Amico’s and Castagna’s case, a person being investigated in the beating agreed to take three lie detector tests and agreed they could be used by prosecutors. After being told she had failed one of the tests, the woman changed her story.
As part of a plea agreement, the woman pleaded guilty to second-degree reckless manslaughter and became a key prosecution witness.
In their ruling, the Supreme Court said that the defendants should have been able to use the woman’s polygraph results and changing story to try to attack her credibility during cross-examination.
“We are convinced that the limitation placed on defendants’ right of cross-examination did not serve the interests of fairness and reliability,” Justice John Wallace Jr. wrote for the majority.
Lawrence S. Lustberg, who submitted a brief in the case on behalf the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey, said that although the decision did not result in a new trial for D’Amico and Castagna, it would benefit others.
“This is an important ruling for future defendants who now know they are entitled to use polygraph results of state witnesses,” Lustberg said.
This really indicates, for me anyway, that those committing crimes shouldn’t take friends along. Not much more to say, as she changed her plea and entered a bargain with prosecution, ‘guilty to second-degree reckless manslaughter’…sounds like she was a great witness who didn’t want to get convicted. Too bad there aren’t better details pertaining to her charge/plea.