Robert J. Brown v. John F. Darcy, A/K/A Jack Darcy, an Individual Ducommun, Inc., a Corporation

Good Law
783 F.2d 1389·20 Fed. R. Serv. 340·1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 22710
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 4, 198683-6440California13,425 words

Opinion

Opinion

783 F.2d 1389 20 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 340 Robert J. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John F. DARCY, a/k/a Jack Darcy, an individual; Ducommun, Inc., a corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 83-6440. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 6, 1985. Decided March 4, 1986. James L. Seal, Swerdlow, Miller, Seal & Swerdlow, P.C., Beverly Hills, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Richard Levy, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before HUG and HALL, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, * District Judge. CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge: 1 Polygraph evidence has been disfavored in the federal courts since the decision of the District of Columbia Circuit in Frye v. United States, 293 Fed. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923). 1 Despite advances in polygraphy since the Frye decision, there are still significant questions regarding the reliability of polygraph examinations. Polygraph evidence also presents problems for our adversarial system because it has an overwhelmingly prejudicial effect when it is inaccurate, interferes with the jury's authority to…

lead Opinion

Hall, J.

Polygraph evidence has been disfavored in the federal courts since the decision of the District of Columbia Circuit in Frye v. United States, 293 Fed. 1013 (D.C. Cir.1923). 1 Despite advances in polygraphy since the Frye decision, there are still significant questions regarding the reliability of polygraph examinations. Polygraph evidence also presents problems for our adversarial system because it has an overwhelmingly prejudicial effect when it is inaccurate, interferes with the jury’s authority to determine credibility, and imposes a burden on district courts to review the reliability of polygraph evidence in each case. Accordingly, we hold that polygraph evidence may not be admitted to establish the truth of statements made during the polygraph examination unless the parties have stipulated to the admissibility of the polygraph results before the examination is administered, and the court is satisfied that the examination has been administered in a manner which supports the reliability of the polygraph results.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff-appellant Robert J. Brown appeals from a jury verdict in favor of defendants John F. Darcy and Ducommun, Inc. on his complaint for libel and…

dissent Opinion

Jameson, J.

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

The majority opinion correctly recognizes that both this court and the district courts have viewed the admission of polygraph evidence with disfavor. United States v. Demma, 523 F.2d 981, 987 (9th Cir.1975) (en banc) noted that, “Our circuit has been inhospitable to contentions that a district court has abused its discretion in refusing to admit polygraphic evidence.” On the other hand, prior decisions of this court have also firmly established the district court’s broad discretion to admit or exclude polygraph evidence at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Givens, 767 F.2d 574, 585 (9th Cir.) (“broad discretion to include or exclude polygraph evidence”), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 321 , 88 L.Ed.2d 304 (1985); United States v. Falsia, 724 F.2d 1339, 1341 (9th Cir.1983) (“The precedent is clear____ [Ajdmission or exclusion of the evidence is in the sound discretion of the district court.”); United States v. Ferris, 719 F.2d 1405, 1408 (9th Cir.1983) (“admission of polygraph testimony is within the discretion of the trial court”); United States v. Eden, 659 F.2d 1376, 1382 (9th Cir.1981) (“whether to allow polygraph evidence is clearly…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.