Add Poll
 
Options: Text Color Split Pie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 2 post(s).
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jul 30th, 2004 at 11:47am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
The California Supreme Court's key ruling in People v. Wilkinson is that "in light of the
categorical prohibition on the admission of polygraph evidence in Penal Code section 351.1, the trial court did not err in declining to hold a Kelly/Frye hearing regarding the evidence proffered by defendant."
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jul 29th, 2004 at 4:55pm
  Mark & Quote
According to an articlepublished on the American Homeoweners Resource Center website, the California Supreme Court will today (29 July 2004) be issuing an opinion that has relevance to the admissibility of polygraph "evidence":

Quote:
PEOPLE v. WILKINSON
S111028 (B145982; Los Angeles County Superior Court No. SA035468)
Argued in San Francisco 5-05-04

This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the statutory scheme permitting battery on a custodial officer to be charged as a straight felony, a straight misdemeanor, or a felony/misdemeanor "wobbler" (see Pen. Code, §§ 243, 243.1) violate equal protection? (2) Was defendant entitled to a Kelly/Frye hearing (see People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24; Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013) regarding the admissibility of evidence of results of a polygraph examination, or is such evidence admissible only pursuant to a stipulation of the parties under Evidence Code section 351.1?


The opinion is to be published on-line here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/
 
  Top