NCJ Number
25530
Journal
St John's Law Review Volume: 49 Issue: 1 Dated: (FALL 1974) Pages: 1-30
Date Published
1974
Length
30 pages
Annotation
THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THE POLYGRAPH MAY BE THE ONLY EFFECTIVE MEANS FOR A DEFENDANT TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE IN PROSECUTIONS WHERE THE CASE AGAINST HIM IS BASED ENTIRELY ON EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY.
Abstract
TO SUPPORT THIS ARGUMENT, HE CITES SEVERAL INSTANCES OF 'WRONG MAN' IDENTIFICATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT CONVICTIONS BASED ON THE ERRONEOUS IDENTIFICATION OF SUSPECTS BY WITNESSES. ATTEMPTS AT SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS IN PRETRIAL LINEUPS AND PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATIONS ARE ALSO EXAMINED, AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF WITNESS INFLUENCE THROUGH SUGGESTIVE OCCURRENCES (EITHER CONSCIOUS OR UNCONSCIOUS, INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL). THE AUTHOR MAINTAINS THAT SINCE IT HAS PROVEN PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO EASE AND/OR ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM OF MISIDENTIFICATION BY STATUTE OR COURT RULE, POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED FOR EXCULPATORY PURPOSES. HE CONSIDERS THE TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ADMISSION OF THE POLYGRAPH--THE ALLEGED UNRELIABILITY OF THE INSTRUMENT, THE NONAVAILABILITY OF EXPERIENCED OPERATORS, AND THE ADVERSE IMPACT SUCH EVIDENCE MAY HAVE ON THE TRIAL PROCESS--AND NOTES THE EVOLVING CASE LAW ON THE NECESSARY PRECONDITIONS FOR ADMITTING SUCH EVIDENCE. SPECIFIC GUIDELINES ARE THEN SUGGESTED FOR ADMITTING POLYGRAPH RESULTS IN THE LIMITED AREA OF IDENTIFICATION CASES.