United States v. Scheffer

1998-03-31

Headline: Court upholds military ban on polygraph evidence, blocking service members from using lie-detector results in court-martial trials and preserving presidentially issued military evidence rules.

Holding: The Court upheld the military rule excluding polygraph evidence in court-martial proceedings, concluding that the categorical ban does not unconstitutionally prevent accused service members from presenting a defense.

Real World Impact:

Prevents use of polygraph results in courts-martial.
Leaves military evidence-making authority with the President and service rules.
Reduces collateral disputes over polygraph reliability at military trials.

Topics: polygraph evidence, military justice, right to present a defense, trial evidence

Summary

Background

An airman who volunteered to assist military investigators submitted to a polygraph and a urine test. The polygraph examiner reported no deception, but the urinalysis later showed methamphetamine. At the court-martial the accused sought to use the polygraph to support his claim of innocent ingestion, but the military judge excluded that evidence under Military Rule of Evidence 707. The airman was convicted and the case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which reversed; the Supreme Court then reviewed the question.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the categorical military ban on admitting polygraph results unconstitutionally prevents an accused service member from presenting a defense. The Supreme Court held that the Rule 707 exclusion is constitutional. The majority explained there is no scientific consensus on polygraph reliability, that the military can legitimately protect the factfinder’s role in judging credibility, and that admitting polygraphs would spawn collateral mini-trials over tests and examiners. The Court applied precedent saying evidence rules are allowed so long as they are not arbitrary or disproportionate to legitimate trial goals.

Real world impact

As a result, service members generally cannot introduce polygraph results in courts-martial. Military authorities retain broad discretion to set evidence rules, and courts-martial will avoid the collateral disputes that the Court feared. The decision affirms the President’s authority under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to prescribe military evidentiary rules.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kennedy joined parts of the opinion but warned the per se ban may be unwise. Justice Stevens dissented, arguing the Rule likely violates the governing statute and the accused’s right to present a meaningful defense, noting the military’s extensive polygraph use and training.