When you and any other lawyers descend into legalese, I can wade through it. I may not catch the lawyerly nuances, but I can follow the gist of the argument. alericthegoth’s post don’t have anything I can follow. I can’t be for or against an argument if I don’t know what in the world the argument is.
only an unregenerate churl could be unmoved by the precatory tone of your post. Unfortunately, I am just such a churl, so as to your request, take it to the mods,; they are paid (?) to deal with such snivels .
As far as I’m concerned, the study cited buries your point of doubt. ymmv.
But in the interest of reasoned debate, let me put to you a slightly different formulation regarding prosecutors, their honesty, and their motivations.
in 1973 the California Supreme Court held that, like any other sort of expert opinion (cf, inter alia, pap smears, accident reconstructions, what have you) the results of a polygraph examination offered by a litigant in support of his credibility (following testimony under oath) should be admissible subject to the cross examination of the polygraph expert, and the opportunity of the adversary party to introduce the countervailing testimony of its own expert in rebuttal to the conclusions advanced by the proffering party.
wasting not a moment, the California District Attorney’s Association successfully lobbied the legislature to pass an execption to this general rule, requiring in criminal cases only, that both sides stipulate to the admissability of the testimony of the polygraph examiner. Needless to say, the DA never stipulates.
As you can (I hope) understand, the DA’s were apprehensive that defendants professing innocence on the stand, would be able to reduce the ambiguity of trial and the concurrent risk to them of the horrendous consequences of a guilty verdict (many times the penalty envisioned by a plea agreement, which concludes 95% of all indictments). I believe the DAs were motivated by a fear that they would have, as a result, less leverage over innocent defendants during the plea negotiations.
If, as you seem to believe, prosecutors are not generically venal, corrupt time-servers who make their living extorting guilty pleas from people they believe to be innocent, please explain their zeal to exclude exculpatory polygraphs.
excellent! Does that mean we will be spared further input from you on these topics?
No, but it means that you will likely be spared any responses from me. I’ll continue my input for messages I understand.
However, since I did get the gist of your last post, I would like to mention that in my opinion, polygraphs should be excluded from use in any venue, courtroom or not, for any reason. They are notoriously unreliable.
It is obvious to the most untrained mind that the California law must protect defendants just as often, if not more often, than it protects the prosecution.
Apparently I am not the only person who thinks this woman broke the law.
Okay. So. Not some…what was that amusing name that was attached to me? LOL. Try telling three assistant US Attorneys that they’re whores for saying this.
G’wan. If it’ll make folks feel better, call em whores too.
She needs to be disbarred and sent to jail. She won’t be, of course.
Cartooniverse, this is your second post since Bricker’s and no acknowledgement or apology for your knee-jerk reaction to his first post? Huh.
Cite? Because People v. Wilkinson says: “Prior to the enactment of Evidence Code section 351.1, the admission of polygraph evidence in California was governed by the test of Frye v. United States, supra, 293 F. 1013. … Relying upon Frye and its progeny, a long line of California decisions has held or recognized that the results of a polygraph examination are inadmissible at trial absent a stipulation by the parties.” (10 citations removed).
What I think you’re talking about it a California Court of Appeals case (not Supreme court) in 1982 (not 1973), called Witherspoon. Just read the Wilkinson case, it explains it better than I. And I’ll ask for a cite to the rest, because you have the credibility of a dead badger.
You believe wrong.
Simple, almost every court, every legislature, and every governing body has found polygraphs to be unreliable. It really not that hard of a concept to grasp. Once again, you’re argument is full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
As I explained earlier, there is such a thing as criminal contempt, which appears to be what Martin did. If you think there is some other law she broke, all you need to say what it is, because I don’t know of one.
I asked for reasons why you seemed to believe the prosecutors were somehow involved in Martin’s malfeasence, and, rather than provide any, you come back to whine even more, now with a extra helping of righteous indignation. Whatever floats your boat, though.
While it may be true that intent cannot by known, it can be judged. Based on her explanation and past actions, we can and should evaluate her assertions and defense, whatever they may be. Are you arguing against doing this? Are you arguing that we should automatically assume the absolute worst of intentions and simply punish her accordingly, to the fullest extent of the law?
If so, I trust that you believe that Sandy Berger should have been executed for his “treasonous” theft of classified documents. Do you?
So far as I know, the Transportation Security Administration didn’t exist at the time of the 9/11 attacks. How could they look bad?
almost every court
cite?
Please note that the “unreliabilty” to which you make global reference is, in fact, no greater or less than the expert analyses of the types I cited. (in fact, pap smear analyses, and similar cytological tests, generally come in at around 60% accuracy when audited, far less accurate than a polygraph in the hands of a competant examiner, who is accredited and educated in the use of "challenge’ questions, which intentionally elicit a false response from an examinee who has shown himself truthful in answering the relevant questions on the exam. When the challenge procedure fails to elicit a “deceptive” response, the examiner will raise questions relative to the possibilty that the examinee has “beaten” the test.
You fail to distinguish, alas, between unreliable indications of deception and unreliable indications of non-decepton. The first category comprises the bulk of the instances wherein a polygraph examiner gives an incorrect evaluation.
Please return to the point at hand. Remember that we are speaking of those rare defendants who take the stand, and are challenged as to their veracity by the DA.
Note that we are not asking that the prosecution witnesses be involuntarily subject to a polygraph.
Finally, whatever your fantasies about other courts or legislatures, the courts and legslature of our largest state have left undisturbed, for over 30 years, the regime under which polygraph examiiner testimony is admissible to bolster the claims that a witness is testifying truthfully, in all cases except criminal cases
Do you suppose that in criminal cases polygraph examiner testimony is somehow unreliable when it is found sufficiently reliable in all other cases, those being of no intertest to the DA’s association.
Try to reason through the real life scenario we are discussing, and do come back with those cites–you will also find, in your research, that Arizona, by act of the legislature (an affirmative step) sanctions polygraph testimony in support of a testifying witness in all cases including criminal.
You need to think this through a little more.
The supreme court left undisturbed the Wilkinson ruling. It was, and still is, law in the state.
that should be witherspoon(, not wilkenson), remains good law. must type slower…
wilkinson goes to the proposition that it is within the competence of the legislature to create an exception to the general admissiblity rule (witherspoon)
you have said nothing to disturb the prima facie case that the DA’s wished to have the power (by refusing to stipulate–note, that the code section does not say :no polygraph categorically–it just says that the DA can choose not to permit its introduction .
You do realize, don’t you , that since a defendant cannot be forced to testify, the defendant is always prepared to stipulate to the polygraph examiner testifying–the issue only arises when the defendant chooses to testify.
eemed to believe the prosecutors were somehow involved in Martin’s malfeasence
for additional clarity, i have no evidence that the prosecutors in this case were aware of or colluded in Martin’s actions–she might very well have been “free-lancing”–I was responding to what I took to be the more general question of whether or not prosecutors, as a class of lawyer, are unscrupulous about the quality of the evidence they present.
Perhaps the juxtaposition of the points in question made that distinction unclear;, thanks for the opportunity to clarify…
, there is such a thing as criminal contempt, which appears to be what Martin did. If you think there is some other law she broke, all you need to say what it is, because I don’t know of one.
the crime in question is obstruction of justice.
criminal contempt is not apposite in Martin’s case because she was not, in fact, appearing before the judge and, strictly speaking, was not personally bound by the judge’s pretrial orders.
Whatever floats your boat
you are not, I take it, a lawyer. (to your credit, to be sure, as to good character, but perhaps a handicap when it comes to the application of legal reasoning…)
you will probably be astonished to learn that in Ohio, evidence from a court-ordered polygraph is admissible and deemed reliable.
Another precinct heard from…
5 posts in a row, and yet no cite. I’m not doing your research for you.
wrong. no one takes a polygraph in anticpation of testifying unless he is innocent. As one cannot be forced to take a polygraph, (fifth amendment, and all), there will not be an adverse polygraph the introduction of which is barred by a defense refusal to stipulate… Please note that the Cal. Defense bar was not the moving party before the legislature.
an interesting bit of illumination as to Martin’s motives:
" Lawyers for two airlines being sued by 9/11 victims prompted a federal attorney to coach witnesses in the Zacarias Moussaoui death penalty trial so the government’s case against the al-Qaeda conspirator would not undercut their defense, victims’ lawyers allege."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-17-airlinesmoussaoui_x.htm?csp=24