Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is 10 minus 4? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Jul 30, 2004, 07:47 AM
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
 - Jul 29, 2004, 12:55 PM
According to an article published 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":

QuotePEOPLE 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, ยงยง 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/