Note: The submission of this Amicus will be done quickly. The
entire process must be finished by the end of July 1997. If you
have any interest in cosigning, you must not delay. We will have
to end the process and prepare the final version of the AC sometime
during the week of 21 July.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
In United States v. Gipson, 24 M.J. 246 (1987) the Court of Military Appeals (now the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) concluded that polygraph tests had reached a level of scientific reliability such that they should not be routinely excluded from court-marital proceedings. Under Gipson, the Military Judge was given the role of gatekeeper and was provided with a set of evidentiary standards to use in the analysis of the admissibility of any offered polygraph examinations. Subsequently, the President of the United States responded to Gipson by promulgating Military Rule of Evidence 707 which provided for a total prohibition of the use of polygraph results in any court-martial proceeding. Respondent attempted to offer the results of an exculpatory polygraph in his defense at court martial. The military judge denied the request and noted that "the polygraph is not a process that has sufficient scientific acceptability to be relevant". The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals rejected respondent's appeal noting that there are "valid concerns" about polygraph examinations. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reversed. Petitioner has appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Petitioner makes a number of legal arguments but also raises a number points that have to do with the science of polygraph testing. Petitioner asserts that the reliability and helpfulness of polygraph tests are widely questioned by the scientific community and that polygraph tests lack broad acceptance within the scientific community. Petitioner also argues that polygraph tests are not necessary for reliable credibility assessments of witnesses at trial.
Charles R. Honts, Ph. D. was contacted by the Respondent's legal team during the third week of June and asked if he would consider preparing an Amicus in support of their case. He agreed and began writing the AC and forming an ad hoc Committee of Concerned Social Scientists. There simply was no time to approach any of the existing scientific organizations. This task has a VERY short fuse. Everything must be complete and published for submission to the Court by the end of July. Thus our haste.
This is primarily an case about presidential v. judicial power, but the Petitioner has raised scientific issues and the Court might rule broadly. This may turn out to be a pivotal case in the legal history of the polygraph.
A draft of the AC is now complete and we seeking cosigners. We are hoping that you will take the time to read the AC and consider signing it. Go to
The Amicus Brief Concerning the Polygraph.
Thanks for taking the time to look at this.
Charles R. Honts, Ph. D. for the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists.
Go to The Amicus Brief Concerning the Polygraph
Additional legal and scientific information on the polygraph can be found at:
The Journal of Credibilty Assessment and Witness Psychology
The Polygraph Law Resouce Pages
First posted to the INTERNET on 7 July 1997
Updated 18 July 1997
End