Masri v. United States
Headline: Court declines to hear a defendant’s challenge to exclusion of polygraph evidence, leaving inconsistent federal rules and affecting who can use such tests at criminal trials.
Holding: The Court declined to hear a challenge about admitting a defendant’s polygraph evidence, effectively leaving the Fifth Circuit’s absolute ban in place while other appeals courts use different rules.
- Leaves defendants in some federal appeals courts barred from offering polygraph evidence.
- Creates uneven trial rules depending on which appeals court handles the case.
- Keeps admissibility question open for future Supreme Court review.
Summary
Background
A person on trial for a crime offered a polygraph test in his own defense to show he lacked criminal intent. The trial judge said the test could have been relevant to intent but excluded it because the Fifth Circuit has a rule that absolutely bars polygraph evidence. The Supreme Court was asked to review the exclusion, but the Court declined to take the case.
Reasoning
The central question was whether a criminal defendant may introduce polygraph evidence to help prove intent. By denying review, the Court did not decide that question on the merits. In a written dissent from the denial, Justice White (joined by Justice Marshall) explained that other federal appeals courts handle polygraph evidence differently—some allow judges to exercise discretion and the Eighth Circuit may admit such evidence when the government does not object—so the issue remains unsettled.
Real world impact
Because the Court declined to hear the case, defendants’ ability to offer polygraph tests depends on which federal appeals court governs their trial. The denial does not resolve the national rule and the admissibility question remains open for future review, so the situation could change if the Court later agrees to hear a similar case.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice White dissented from the denial and would have granted review and set the case for argument, stressing that defendants’ rights vary notably across circuits and the record provided a clear chance to address the conflict.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?