NCJ Number
139804
Journal
Missouri Law Review Volume: 56 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1991) Pages: 143-162
Date Published
1991
Length
20 pages
Annotation
The Eleventh and Eighth Circuits reviewed the rules of polygraph evidence in two cases, United States v. Piccinonna and Underwood v. Colonial Penn Insurance, and ruled that polygraph evidence should not be admissible under the same standards as other scientific evidence.
Abstract
While polygraph evidence was offered in both cases, one case involved the use of such evidence to exculpate the defendant. In the other case, the defendant offered the evidence to inculpate the plaintiff as an arsonist. Both courts held in favor of greater admissibility of polygraph evidence but established intermediate approaches to the admissibility of such evidence. In United States v. Piccinnonna, the Eleventh Circuit specifically rejected the per se exclusion rule and developed new admissibility standards. The court gave three reasons why it was abandoning the per se rule: technological advances in polygraphs; polygraph testing's widespread acceptance as a useful and reliable scientific tool; and lack of convincing evidence that juries are unduly influenced by polygraph evidence. The Eighth Circuit determined that district courts may exercise discretion in admitting or excluding polygraph evidence and that traditional objections to polygraph admissibility become irrelevant or are greatly reduced when polygraph evidence is offered for nonsubstantive purposes. The author concludes that courts should adopt rules recognizing the value of polygraph tests in certain cases and minimize the perceived dangers associated with polygraph evidence. 155 footnotes