Cordoba

United States v. Cordoba

Good Law
104 F.3d 225·97 Daily Journal DAR 1468·1997 WL 3317·45 Fed. R. Serv. 1197·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2222
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 7, 1997No. 95-50492California2,031 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thomas, J.

This appeal requires us to decide whether our per se rule excluding the admission of unstipulated polygraph evidence was effectively overruled by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). We conclude it was and vacate Defendant Cordoba’s conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). We affirm the remainder of the district court’s evidentiary rulings.

I.

We have long expressed our hostility to the admission of unstipulated polygraph evidence. See United States v. Givens, 767 F.2d 574, 585-86 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 953 , 106 S.Ct. 321 , 88 L.Ed.2d 304 (1985); United States v. Demma, 523 F.2d 981, 987 (9th Cir.1975) (en banc). This antipathy culminated in the adoption of a “bright line rule” excluding all unstipulated polygraph evidence offered in civil or criminal trials. See Brown v. Darcy, 783 F.2d 1389 , 1396 n. 13 (9th Cir.1986).

In Daubert , the Supreme Court held that Federal Rulé of Evidence 702, governing the admission of scientific expert testimony, superseded Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923), which had required scientific…

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.