SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 29
th, 2008 at 1:17pm:
Quote: I am sure that most victims that visit this site will see what I wrote was in fact accurate. oh...... except for New Mexico
Actually current general standard is that Judges are given discretion on whether or not to admit polygraph.
OK what about Ohio v. Sharma (Case No. CR 06-09-3248),
Hovenden v. State of Indiana, 92A03-9903-CR-10
and the following is excerpted from United States of America, v. Julio Piccinonna, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. - 885 F.2d 1529
Quote:"the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and the Court of Military Appeals permit admission of polygraph evidence even in the absence of a stipulation when special circumstances exist. The Third and Seventh Circuits permit polygraph evidence to be introduced for the purpose of rebutting a claim by the defendant that his confession was the result of coercion. United States v. Johnson, 816 F.2d 918, 923 (3rd Cir.1987); United States v. Kampiles, 609 F.2d 1233, 1245 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 954, 100 S.Ct. 2923, 64 L.Ed.2d 812 (1980). The Tenth Circuit has permitted the government to introduce the fact that the defendant failed a polygraph test to explain why the police detective had not conducted a more thorough investigation. United States v. Hall, 805 F.2d 1410 (10th Cir.1986). In its attempt to mitigate the potential problems with polygraph evidence, the Sixth Circuit has promulgated a two-step approach to admission. Wolfel v. Holbrook, 823 F.2d 970 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1035, 98 L.Ed.2d 999 (1988). "First, the trial court must determine if the proffered evidence is relevant. Second, if the court concludes that the proffered evidence is relevant, it must balance the probative value of the evidence against the hazard of unfair prejudice and/or confusion which could mislead the jury." Id. at 972. The Ninth Circuit holds polygraph evidence admissible only in instances narrowly tailored to limit the prejudicial impact of the evidence. United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1989). The Miller court, in considering prior Ninth Circuit cases on this issue, noted that polygraph evidence might be admissible if it is "introduced for a limited purpose that is unrelated to the substantive correctness of the results of the polygraph examination." Id. at 1261. In United States v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 1337, 1341 (9th Cir.1988), the court held that if "the polygraph evidence is being introduced because it is relevant that a polygraph examination was given, regardless of the result, then it may be admissible"
What you are looking at in general is a changing landscape concerning polygraph admissibility. if you dig into a lot of cases you'll see that #1 the evidence must be relevant which means having a bearing on or connection with the subject at issue and #2 the probative value must outweigh the potential prejudice.
All evidence is subject to exclusion on that 2 pronged test.
What you should do is just stop saying that polygraph is inadmissible in court, but what I expect you to say now is that what you were saying all along is that polygraph is inadmissible in court except for New Mexico, Ohio, Indiana, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits.
I fully expect Sergeant to chime in here accusing me of an ad hominum attack, but I submit that based on your postings there is infinitely more evidence that you are a ignorant, misinformed fool than there is that I am small minded, self serving, a charlatan, an idiot, or even a polygraph examiner.
Sancho Panza
You know what Sancho Panza I've had an epiphany.
YOUR RIGHT!!
Forget all that I have said in the past.
*I have chosen to follow you and your ideals.
*I am now willing to forget my personal experience.
*I am willing to disregard the NSA's report.
*I am willing to see that since I failed my test and have not been charged it must just be that the police lost my paperwork.
*I am willing to believe that most if not all false positives as well as false negatives ( Gary Ridgeway to mention one passed his poly) are just lies and possibly software glitches because Polygraphs detect lies at a rate of 98%
*I am willing to forget that examiners routinely LIE about Polygraph to bolster the publics idea that Polygraph does in fact detect lies.
*I am willing to suspend my assertion that your position is a narrow minded, self serving one because you have no motive other than my own good to be here ( wasting countless hours on what you said were only a few vocal false positives ) to promote polygraphs validity.
* I am willing to acknowledge that just maybe I may have committed that crime, after all the polygraph said I was deceptive. Maybe the machine knows what I did or didn't do better than I do.
* I am willing to join forces with you and defeat all these disgruntled, pathetic liars that are clearly on here cause they have nothing better to do than waste countless hours posting and giving you a bad name, shame on them dam it!
I only wish I knew where you lived I would love to intern for you. I would love to breath the essence of you Sancho.
I can't tell you how grateful I am to you for showing me the light it is such a relief to have some one to lead so I need not rely on my obviously misguided intellect.
Funny thing is that he will probably buy all this