- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by beech trees
- Sep 25, 2002, 11:46 AMQuote from: Whisper on Sep 24, 2002, 06:45 PM
I should add the reason I ask for this info is to respond to a letter in the editorials of a local paper. The writer repsonded to a previous article that said "there is no independent, repeatable, verifiable scientific evidence supporting polygraphy." The writer said this was blatantly untrue and calls our attention to the in-depth study the Louisiana State Supreme Court did of the polygraph in 1979, outlined in the case of State vs Catanese. The writer continued by saying that is was admissible in the New Jersey courts if the prosecutors agreed to it.
Is that letter to the editor online somewhere? I'd like to read it. The argument is fairly worthless and inaccurate, IMHO.
Posted by beech trees
- Sep 24, 2002, 08:57 PMWhile several Google searches elicited hits on 'state v. catanese', they were all brief citations for precedent dealing with later court decisions.
The Louisiana State Supreme Court website only has opinions dating back to 1995 or so. I called the Clerk and found out that the full text can be copied and mailed to you for a fee, or you can stop by the Clerk's office and read it there (presuming you're in LA).
A good law library in your area also might have the decision on file, or perhaps a good samaritan here on the boards can get it to you (I'd be interested in reading it as well).
Curiously, it would appear that State v. Catanese DID exclude polygraph evidence during the course of the trial, finding in part:
...the probative value [of the polygraph] is so outweighed by reasons for its exclusion that the evidence should not be admitted in criminal trials...
An excellent commentary on both the Frye decision and its successor, Daubert, may be read here. One of the pertinent passages concerning Catanese is as follows:
Dave
The Louisiana State Supreme Court website only has opinions dating back to 1995 or so. I called the Clerk and found out that the full text can be copied and mailed to you for a fee, or you can stop by the Clerk's office and read it there (presuming you're in LA).
A good law library in your area also might have the decision on file, or perhaps a good samaritan here on the boards can get it to you (I'd be interested in reading it as well).
Curiously, it would appear that State v. Catanese DID exclude polygraph evidence during the course of the trial, finding in part:
...the probative value [of the polygraph] is so outweighed by reasons for its exclusion that the evidence should not be admitted in criminal trials...
An excellent commentary on both the Frye decision and its successor, Daubert, may be read here. One of the pertinent passages concerning Catanese is as follows:
QuoteSimilarly, in State v. Catanese,(33) the Louisiana Supreme Court relied on Professor McCormick's criticism of Frye in concluding that the "`general acceptance' standard of Frye is an unjustifiable obstacle to the admission of polygraph test results."(34) Even though the Catanese court was influenced by criticism of the Frye standard, it nevertheless excluded the polygraph evidence, reasoning that the "probative value is so outweighed by reasons for its exclusion that the evidence should not be admitted in criminal trials."(35) Thus, the reaction of several state courts to the growing criticism of Frye was evident years before the United States Supreme Court overruled the Frye standard in its Daubert decision.(36)
Dave
Posted by Whisper
- Sep 24, 2002, 06:45 PMI should add the reason I ask for this info is to respond to a letter in the editorials of a local paper. The writer repsonded to a previous article that said "there is no independent, repeatable, verifiable scientific evidence supporting polygraphy." The writer said this was blatantly untrue and calls our attention to the in-depth study the Louisiana State Supreme Court did of the polygraph in 1979, outlined in the case of State vs Catanese. The writer continued by saying that is was admissible in the New Jersey courts if the prosecutors agreed to it.
The end of the of letter concluded by saying polygraphs do have an 85 to 95 percent rate of successfully indicating truthfulness.
What H.S! and I'm responding.
The end of the of letter concluded by saying polygraphs do have an 85 to 95 percent rate of successfully indicating truthfulness.
What H.S! and I'm responding.
Posted by Whisper
- Sep 24, 2002, 06:04 PMIs anyone familiar with this case? Did/does it allow for polygraphs to be used in court?
tks
tks