State of Maine v. Grey

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: November 7, 2017
• Docket: WALcr-16-783
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET WALDO, ss. DKT. NO. WALCD-CR-16-783

) STATE OF MAlNE, ) ) ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S v. ) MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING ) ADMISSION OF POLYGRAPH ) TESTING AND RESULTS ) RICHARD GREY )

Presently before the Court in this matter is Defendant's Motion in Limine Requesting

Admission of Polygraph Testing and Results. The Court held a hearing on August 30, 2017, and

the parties subsequently submitted briefs in support of their respective arguments. Because the

Law Comt has taken a clear stance on the admission of polygraph test results and a defendant's

willingness, or unwillingness, to take one, the Defendant's Motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

The Court held a hearing on Defendant's Motion on August 30, 2017. At the hearing,

Defendant called Mark Teceno, a licensed polygraph examiner, to testify as to the polygraph

examination Mr. Teceno conducted on the Defendant on April 27, 2017. The State called Teny

James, a polygraph examiner for the State Police, to testify about his review of Mr. Teceno's

polygraph examination of Defendant. The parties agreed to submit written briefs in support of

their respective positions on the admission vel non of the results of Mr. Teceno's polygraph

examination of Defendant.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues the results of polygraph examinations are reliable enough in

contempora1y times such that Maine coutts should abandon long-held concerns over the 1 reliability of polygraph cxaminalions and the effects they have on the factiincler's determination

of credibility. However, this Court is not persuaded it should upend decades of established

Maine caselaw-ineluding recent reinforcement-holding results of a polygraph examination

and a defendant's willingness, or unwillingness, to take one inadmissible. 2 The Law Court has

had a number of chances in the relatively recent past lo reexamine its original position on

excluding polygraph exams and has reiterated its position on the inadmissibility of polygraphs al

trial.

As recently as 2010, the Law Court highlighted its "long-standing, fundamental concern

regarding polygraph machines due to their non-existent value when it comes to determining

credibility, and the dangerous possibility that credibility will be evaluated by lhe device rather

than by the trier of fact." Lavoie, 2010 ME 76, ii 14, 1 A.3d 408 (citations and quotations

omitted). Due to this concern, "polygraph test results and 11 defendant's willingness, or

unwillingness, to take a polygraph test are inadmissible." Id. In 2012, in a cm,e where the

admissibility- --or inaclmissibility--of the results of a polygraph examination was not directly al

issue, the Law Court arguably went out of its way to re-stale in a footnote "that the results of

polygraph tests are completely inadmissible because they have non-existent value when it comes

to determining credibility." Stale v. NightinKale, 2012 ME 132, ~ 3 n. I, 58 A.3d 1057 (citations

1 Defendant argues polygraph e.xaminations arc statistically more accurate than other types of evidence allowed into court. llowever, the purported statistically less-reliable examples Mr. Teccno pointed to during the hearing are all tests used during field sobriety testing. The reslllts of these sorts of tests go to the issue of whether or not an individual was impaired, no! the individuul's credibility. On the other hand, the results of a polygraph examination go directly to the issue of the credibility of the cxominee, who may or may not testify in court. Because "the fact­ finder is permitted to ... decide the weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility lo be afforded to the witnesses," State v. Medeirns, 2010 ME 47,, 16, 997 A.2d 95, the effect of polygraph examinations making m1 implicit or explicit determination of the cxaminee's credibility i.~ a unique concern nut present with other types of ostensihly less-reliable forms of evidence. Defendant offers to forego a jury trio! if this Court is concerned the jury would be confused by admission of the results of the polygraph exam. However, this Court is not aware of any Law Court case sanctioning the admission of the results of polygraph examinations in bench trials. Thus, the Law Court's blanket prohibition on the admission of the results of polygraph examinations controls. 2 Sec, e.g., SWle v. Luvoie, 20 IO ME 76, 11~ I '1-16, I A.3d 408, and the cases cited therein for a discussion of the line of precedent.

2 and quotations omitted). Not only is the Law Court convinced the results of polygraph tests have

non-existent value for determining credibility, but they could, in fact, have negative value with

respect to credibility because "[l]ie detector evidence directly and pervasively impinges upon

that function which is so uniquely the prerogative of the jury as fact-finder: to decide the

credibility of witnesses." State v. Williams, 388 A.2d 500, 502 (Me. 1978).

With respect to the evidence of "reliability" presented during the motion hearing in the

pending case, the Court is not persuaded that there has been a sufficient demonstration that

reliability of the proffered evidence has been established. There is no question that the two

witnesses presented were highly competent, licensed polygraph examiners who were well versed

in the utilization and interpretation of such examinations. However, the data regarding the

scientific evaluation of the reliability and validation of polygraph testing as a whole remains

limited and fairly recent.

Since reiterating its concern with polygraphs generally and the possibility that the jury

will use the results of the polygraph exam to make credibility determinations in Lavoie, the Law

Court has not provided any signal that it is ready to reconsider its position on the inadmissibility

the polygraph test results and a defendant's willingness, or unwillingness, to take the test. Until

the Law Court holds otherwise, the results of a polygraph examination and a defendant's

willingness, or unwillingness, to take one are inadmissible.

3 The entry is:

1. Defendant's Motion in Limine Requesting Admission of Polygraph Testing and Results is DENIED. 2. The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R.U. Crim. P. 53(a).

Dated: _ _ ./_/ $f .,! / ;'I J

R~tS(t E. Murra V /

Justice, Maine ~uperior Court