{"id":2238,"date":"2020-05-28T11:20:10","date_gmt":"2020-05-28T16:20:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=2238"},"modified":"2020-05-28T14:39:55","modified_gmt":"2020-05-28T19:39:55","slug":"wisconsin-court-of-appeals-throws-out-post-polygraph-confession-on-grounds-of-coercion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2020\/05\/28\/wisconsin-court-of-appeals-throws-out-post-polygraph-confession-on-grounds-of-coercion\/","title":{"rendered":"Wisconsin Court of Appeals Throws Out Post-Polygraph Confession on Grounds of Coercion"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n

In a 19 May 2020 ruling<\/a>, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the suppression of a post-polygraph confession in the child molestation case of Wisconsin<\/em> v. Adam W. Vice<\/em> (2018AP2220-CR).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2016, Vice was accused of sexually molesting a four-year-old girl. Questioned by Washburn County Sheriff’s Department investigator William Fisher, Vice “denied any wrongdoing and asked Fisher if there was anything he could do to clear his name.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Polygraph Operator Ryan Lambeseder
(2016 Eau Claire Leader-Telegram<\/em> photo)<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Fisher arranged for Vice to submit to a polygraph “test” conducted by Ryan Lambeseder of the Eau Claire Police Department. Vice “failed” the polygraph and ultimately confessed during a post-polygraph interrogation jointly conducted by Lambeseder and Fisher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals concluded (at para. 72 of its decision) that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…the totality of the circumstances here evidences that the officers improperly used coercive methods and strategies to overcome Vice’s ability to resist including: (1) making numerous, repeated references to the polygraph results throughout the entire course of the post-polygraph interview; (2) repeatedly asserting that those results showed Vice\u2014who claimed not to remember the assault\u2014did remember it; (3) failing to correct Vice’s statement that he must have assaulted the victim because the test said he did; and (4) failing to inform Vice that the test results would be inadmissible in any criminal proceedings against him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The court goes on to state (at para. 81): “…we caution law enforcement officers that if they plan to rely on polygraph results in order to elicit a defendant’s confession, they need to inform the defendant that those results are inadmissible in court.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gretchen Schuldt of the Wisconsin Justice Initiative reports on the ruling in a 26 May 2020 UrbanMilwaukee.com article titled, “Appeals Court Nixes Post-Polygraph Confession.”<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

See also the Wisconsin State Public Defender On Point<\/em> blog post, “Defense win! COA affirms suppression of confession given after polygraph exam,”<\/a> which includes a link to other filings in this case and a comment by Vice’s attorney, Frederick A. Bechtold<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And for an example of a federal case where a post-polygraph confession was suppressed, see our 2016 article, Federal Judge Throws Out FBI Post-Polygraph Confession Over Concerns About Voluntariness<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In a 19 May 2020 ruling, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the suppression of a post-polygraph confession in the child molestation case of Wisconsin v. Adam W. Vice (2018AP2220-CR). In 2016, Vice was accused of sexually molesting a four-year-old girl. Questioned by Washburn County Sheriff’s Department investigator William Fisher, Vice “denied any wrongdoing and …<\/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":[191],"class_list":{"0":"post-2238","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-interrogation","8":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2238","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=2238"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2238\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2245,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2238\/revisions\/2245"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}