{"id":171,"date":"2007-11-28T07:12:13","date_gmt":"2007-11-28T11:12:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=171"},"modified":"2019-11-08T04:05:40","modified_gmt":"2019-11-08T09:05:40","slug":"new-jersey-court-rejects-uncounseled-polygraph-stipulations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2007\/11\/28\/new-jersey-court-rejects-uncounseled-polygraph-stipulations\/","title":{"rendered":"New Jersey Court Rejects Uncounseled Polygraph Stipulations"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"entry\">\n<p>Gannett correspondent Michael Rispoli reports for the <em>Asbury Park Press<\/em> in <a title=\"Conviction overturned due to polygraph test\" href=\"https:\/\/www.newspapers.com\/newspage\/144656065\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">&#8220;Conviction overturned due to polygraph test&#8221;<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>A New Jersey appellate court on Tuesday reversed the sexual molestation conviction of a Union County man due to the unreliability of a lie detector test given to him before he was charged with the crime.<\/p>\n<p>The defendant, known as A.O. in court documents, was convicted of sexually assaulting his girlfriend&#8217;s 9-year-old daughter in 2001. The prosecution&#8217;s case relied heavily upon A.O.&#8217;s failed polygraph test, which he took after the allegations were lodged, without a defense attorney involved. A.O. was arrested and charged after the failed test, but the daughter recanted her accusation before reaffirming it a year later.<\/p>\n<p>Since the reliability of polygraph tests is still debated in the scientific field, the appellate court found it &#8220;fundamentally unfair to permit an uncounseled defendant to stake his fate on what may be the equivalent of a coin toss.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Because the polygraph evidence may well have made the difference between conviction and acquittal in this case, the conviction must be reversed and the matter remanded for retrial,&#8221; wrote Appellate Judge Susan L. Resiner in the court&#8217;s opinion.<\/p>\n<p>Union County Prosecutor&#8217;s Office spokeswoman Eileen Walsh said the office would be appealing the decision, but would not comment further on the court&#8217;s decision.<\/p>\n<p>The ruling could have statewide implications. In a separate opinion that concurred with the main 34-page decision, Appellate Judge Harvey Weissbard urged the state Supreme Court to &#8220;take the next, logical step, barring the use of polygraph evidence entirely.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Weissbard said the problem with a polygraph is &#8220;not just that it is unreliable, but . . . so inherently prejudicial.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The Court&#8217;s decision, including Judge Weissbard&#8217;s separate opinion, may be <a title=\"Appellate Court Opinion in New Jersey v. A.O.\" href=\"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/litigation\/ao\/a5388-04.pdf\">downloaded here<\/a> (125 kb PDF).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gannett correspondent Michael Rispoli reports for the Asbury Park Press in &#8220;Conviction overturned due to polygraph test&#8221;: A New Jersey appellate court on Tuesday reversed the sexual molestation conviction of a Union County man due to the unreliability of a lie detector test given to him before he was charged with the crime. The defendant, &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-171","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=171"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2105,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171\/revisions\/2105"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}