Specious, alaricthegoth, specious.
As anyone who cares to read the link (and here is one that actually works) can tell, the polygraph was ordered by the court post-conviction for sentencing purposes, is only addressed in passing, and was not the subject of any part of the appeal. Though I agree that that is wrong and should not have happened, it had nothing to do with the finding of guilt of the defendant. Find me a cite for an Ohio court allowing polygraph evidence during* a trial.
No? The police never pressure a suspect into a polygraph?
Not to drag this thread back on topic or anything, but I am more amused than I probably should be that current proceedings in this matter are centering on Carla Martin’s taint. 
People v. Adams: "It is undeniable that to date the great majority of appellate decisions in all jurisdictions have ruled polygraph evidence to be inadmissible. California opinions are with the majority. In 1957, in People v. Carter, 48 Cal.2d 737, on page 752 [312 P.2d 665], our California Supreme Court specifically stated that: “Lie detector tests do not as yet have enough reliability to justify the admission of expert testimony based on their results.”
The ruling in Witherspoon was directly, and uncontractedly overruled by statute. It is undeniably NOT good law, and you’d be laughed out of any courtroom if you tried to argue otherwise.
And I’m still waiting for an actual cite to the hijacking crap you spew, but, at this point, don’t even bother.
you still do not seem to understand (by the way, way quote adams, it is overruled by witherspoon)
thestatutory overrule goes only to criminal cases. Polygraphs are routinely admitted, particularly in child custody cases where allegations and counter-allegations frequently go to behavior for which there are nopercipient witnesses other than tha parties and where there is no physical evidence on which to base a finding of fact. (eg, allegations ofchild molestation)
Return, if you will be so kind, to your speculations as to the motivation for the DA Association’s panic.
And unless you have a law degree, leave off the uneducated attempts at legal research.
Or, go to law school
If you can get in…
not when he is represented, and the polygraphs in coercive settings are easily imeached on the voir dire of the examiner.
Try to stay in the real world.
Furthermore, even a polygraph extracted from an unrepresented and effectively mirandized defendant would be irrelevant UNLESS THE DEFENDANT TAKES THE STAND
How many criminal cases have you tried?
it goes to reliability, counselor…
you can’t be serious…they didn’t really say “taint” did they?..she knd of looks like she might have a pretty one…
you can’t be serious…they didn’t really say “taint” did they?..she knd of looks like she might have a pretty one…shucks, they used the verb, not the noun, you sly dog you.
Heh. Good one, alaric.
Liar. You have convinced me that, in addition to making bizarre, senseless, poorly constructed arguments, that you are most definately not a lawyer, and, most likely, posting only to get a rise out of people, including me. I will simply put the truth, to counter your unresearched lies, out there for those who are reading, and not feed you.
Witherspoon did not overrule Adams.
Polygraphs in California are not “routinely admitted” in California. They are used more as an investigation tool than a “lie detector”.
For which you have provided no cite, no legitimate argument, and no evidence supporting your position thta a) they pushed it through, and b) they did it to keep innocent people in jail.
snort. You’re really a keeper, aren’t you? Go away kid, ya’ bother me.
Chill out, everybody, please.
Moderator’s Note: This forum is for debating; this thread is for debating the issues raised by the actions of a U.S. government lawyer in the Zacarias Moussaoui case.
It is not for personal sniping at other posters on the SDMB. The snarkiness level of too many posters in this thread needs to be dialed back several notches, please.
Yes. My apologies.
Damn right!!! Your snarkiness is the sole reason this thread has devolved, you ignorant slut.
I too apologize for Frank’s [sub]but mostly my[/sub] uncouth behavior
how fascinating obliged to visit my undecided interlocutor’s page in order to engage one of the features of the board, I discover that he lists his occupation as “prosecutor”
All is thus explained. Refer to my original characterization of prosecutors for amplification…
Moderator’s Warning: Alaricthegoth, after I requested that everyone in this thread tone back the snarkiness, you’re not trying to imply that another poster on this board is a “venal, corrupt time-server”, are you?
Don’t play games and don’t try to see how close to the line you can dance, or you could find your posting privileges gone.
I was deeply wounded that you might me so reprobate as to fracture the fellowship of this board by insulting brother Hamlet.
Not at all.
You will, I hope, have noted the usage quote prosecutor unquote
Having already expressed my firm conviction that Denmark’s Indecisive Doubter was, at best, an aspirant to law school, and given that, even in the most forgiving of jurisdictions the job of incarcerating the innocent is reserved to law school graduates, it should have been obvious to the most casual observer that I was assuming that the identification offered on his page was in the nature of a Dungeons and Dragons or similar fantasy game avatar, thus the enclosure of the word in quotation marks, a universal usage intended to exclude factual accuracy.
If, in fact, he earns his living as a district attorney, I wish to make clear my conviction that he is that gem among prosecutors, an honest man; all sins being washed away by his practice of posting on this board. I specifically apologize in case I have misunderstood his page, and taken a factual statement for a fantasy avatar.
In fact, let me add that he must then be, in actual fact, the Debra La Fave prosecutor, who, this very day, has proven me grievously incorrect in my blanket condemnation of the breed.
Hamlet, if you cut Debbie loose, you are a good man, and I salute you.
“might think me…”