Israel Et Al. v. McMorris

1982-02-22

Headline: Court declines to review a ruling that may require prosecutors to explain refusals to admit polygraph test results, leaving the appeals court decision in place and affecting criminal defendants and state evidence rules.

Holding: The Court denied review, leaving in place the appeals court’s view that a prosecutor’s unexplained refusal to stipulate to polygraph evidence may raise constitutional concerns unless the prosecutor can show valid reasons.

Real World Impact:

Leaves lower-court ruling in place for this case, affecting the defendant’s relief.
Raises questions for defendants in many States that allow polygraph stipulations.
Highlights circuit splits over whether prosecutors must explain evidence refusals.

Topics: polygraph evidence, criminal trials, prosecutor decisions, state evidence rules

Summary

Background

State officials asked the high court to review a prisoner's challenge to Wisconsin’s former rule about polygraph tests. Under the old Wisconsin rule, a polygraph could be used only if both sides signed a written agreement, the trial judge could still exclude the test, and juries were told the test only shows truthfulness at the test time. The Seventh Circuit held that a prosecutor’s unexplained refusal to agree to admit polygraph results could violate a defendant’s right to a fair trial and ordered relief unless the prosecutor had valid reasons.

Reasoning

The main question was whether a prosecutor must state reasons when refusing a defendant’s offer to stipulate to otherwise inadmissible polygraph evidence and whether courts may review those reasons. The Supreme Court declined to take the case, so it did not resolve that constitutional question. Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justice O’Connor, dissented from the denial and argued the Court should have granted review because the appeals court’s rule could reach far beyond polygraph tests and because Courts of Appeals disagree on the issue.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the appeals court’s decision remains binding in that case. The opinion notes that about 23 States allow polygraphs by stipulation, so the appeals court’s rule could affect many defendants and raise habeas claims in multiple States. The split among federal appeals courts over this question is highlighted. The denial leaves unresolved whether prosecutors generally must explain objections that keep certain evidence out of trials.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Rehnquist’s dissent says the question has broad consequences, urges plenary review, and notes circuit conflicts and the potential reach beyond polygraph evidence.