{"id":4319,"date":"2005-04-13T15:00:10","date_gmt":"2005-04-13T20:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=4319"},"modified":"2021-03-25T16:32:58","modified_gmt":"2021-03-25T21:32:58","slug":"polygraph-tests-inadmissible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2005\/04\/13\/polygraph-tests-inadmissible\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;Polygraph Tests Inadmissible&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"entry\">\n\n\n<p>Detroit <em>Free Press<\/em> staff writer Nate Trela <a href=\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20050419142000\/http:\/\/www.freep.com\/news\/locmac\/marlinga13e_20050413.htm\">reports<\/a>. Excerpt: <\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>Polygraph evidence indicating that former Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga and two codefendants did not swap campaign contributions for prosecutorial favors will not be seen by a grand jury, nor will it be admissible if the case goes to trial.<\/p><p>U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said in a written ruling Tuesday that she cannot order the U.S. Attorney&#8217;s Office to present the evidence to the grand jury.<\/p><p>She added that the results of polygraph examinations taken by Marlinga, state Sen. Jim Barcia, D-Bay City, and Warren real estate broker Ralph Roberts could not be considered in a trial because the government did not participate in the administration of the tests, let alone know about them.<\/p><p>&#8220;Contrary to defendants&#8217; assertion, not all would agree that polygraph results favorable to them are clear, substantial evidence of innocence,&#8221; she wrote in the 8-page ruling. &#8220;In fact, courts and the scientific community have yet to reach a consensus regarding whether polygraph tests are, indeed, reliable barometers of veracity, particularly when administered unilaterally, as was done here.&#8221;<\/p><p>David Griem, an attorney for Roberts, said: &#8220;We are disappointed, but not surprised, by the ruling.&#8221;<\/p><p>Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Tukel, Marlinga&#8217;s attorney Mark Kriger and Barcia&#8217;s attorney Harold Gurewitz declined to comment on the ruling.<\/p><p>The attorneys for Marlinga, Barcia and Ralph Roberts &#8212; no relation to the judge &#8212; filed a motion last month revealing the results of privately administered polygraph exams.<\/p><p>The three men were indicted in April 2004 for allegedly scheming to trade contributions to Marlinga&#8217;s ill-fated 2002 congressional campaign for prosecutorial favors for two rape suspects. During their exams they denied wrongdoing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Detroit Free Press staff writer Nate Trela reports. Excerpt: Polygraph evidence indicating that former Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga and two codefendants did not swap campaign contributions for prosecutorial favors will not be seen by a grand jury, nor will it be admissible if the case goes to trial. U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said &#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":[95,539,540,388,541],"class_list":{"0":"post-4319","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-admissibility","8":"tag-carl-marlinga","9":"tag-jim-barcia","10":"tag-michigan","11":"tag-ralph-roberts","12":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4319","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=4319"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4319\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4320,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4319\/revisions\/4320"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}