State v. Alexander
2015 WL 9257270, 364 P.3d 458, 2015 Alas. App. LEXIS 188 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court has the discretion under the Daubert standard to admit polygraph evidence if it finds the methodology to be scientifically valid, and it may impose conditions on its admission, such as requiring the defendant to submit to a state-administered polygraph examination and to testify at trial, to mitigate potential unfair prejudice.
Facts:
- Thomas Henry Alexander was charged with several counts of sexual abuse of a minor.
- In preparation for trial, Alexander's defense attorney hired an expert, Dr. David C. Raskin, to administer a polygraph examination.
- During the examination, Alexander denied committing the acts of abuse with which he was charged.
- Based on the results, Dr. Raskin concluded that there was a high likelihood (over 90% certainty) that Alexander was being truthful in his denials.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Henry Alexander was charged with sexual abuse of a minor in Alaska superior court.
- Alexander filed a motion to admit favorable polygraph evidence, requesting a hearing to establish its scientific validity under the Daubert standard.
- The superior court held a consolidated evidentiary hearing with another criminal case raising the same issue.
- Following the hearing, the superior court judges issued a joint decision ruling that the 'control question' polygraph evidence met the Daubert test and was admissible.
- The court conditioned the admission of the evidence on two requirements: that Alexander submit to a second polygraph examination administered by the State's expert and that he testify at his trial.
- The State petitioned the Court of Appeals to review and reverse the superior court's admissibility ruling.
- Alexander filed a cross-petition with the Court of Appeals, asking it to vacate the two conditions placed on the evidence's admission.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by ruling that polygraph evidence is admissible under the Daubert standard, on the condition that the defendant submits to a second polygraph examination administered by the state's expert and testifies at trial, subjecting himself to cross-examination?
Opinions:
Majority - Mannheimer, J.
No. The superior court did not abuse its discretion by conditioning the admission of the defendant's polygraph evidence on his submission to a state-administered examination and his agreement to testify at trial. Given the conflicting expert testimony on the reliability of polygraph examinations, the trial court's finding that the evidence met the first prong of the Daubert test (scientific validity) was not unreasonable. The conditions imposed were a reasonable exercise of the court's authority under Evidence Rules 403 and 705(c) to mitigate potential unfair prejudice. The requirement of a second, state-administered test addresses the 'friendly examiner' problem, while the requirement that the defendant testify solves the hearsay problem that arises when an expert recites a non-testifying defendant's out-of-court exculpatory statements, by subjecting those statements to cross-examination.
Analysis:
This decision affirms that the admissibility of polygraph evidence in Alaska is governed by the deferential 'abuse of discretion' standard under Daubert, leading to case-by-case determinations rather than a uniform rule. It establishes a significant precedent by empowering trial judges to place substantial conditions on the admission of such evidence, including requiring a defendant to waive their right to remain silent as a precondition for introducing exculpatory scientific evidence. This ruling creates a strategic dilemma for defendants, forcing them to weigh the benefits of favorable polygraph results against the risks of undergoing a state-run examination and facing cross-examination at trial. The court also notably criticizes the 'abuse of discretion' standard for scientific evidence, highlighting its potential to create inconsistent outcomes in different courts and urging the Alaska Supreme Court to adopt a de novo review for the general scientific validity of a technique.
