WPC|M В'(w+>"d(/ŝm=:wd2s)=}35KdӯMhf}<cv>9`s ӛqa+Z]nNZV2L&$@+7P0 /",W_B 줓JDD ,讛cgGSi^;(,DmcZ`Ӣ+^?ȤEGZBˀ7Sئ7)O9 z$-L'yR "ΝoiZV'хIWSFyIِoWH߾.{>Z]?O̟E7%YO;g{SZB_0oj"焨]ĿI ]k;W审 W?n QoZףv9^J;k#U*N % 0: UN) ^ w w 4 0~ 0D ] l mn ~ U>A 0wI 0cU@# 1uc 72  0 0 0G 0 0 0 0D 1Y0 0VG 0 N= =  N*#^,#V# 0#h$ 0<% 0-& 0'`( 0f( 0N) 03* 0+ 0+ 0, 0- 0. 0m/ 0F0 01 01 02 03 0V4 075 06 06 07 08 0o9 0>: 0 ; 00; 0<< 0?< 0>< 0v;= 0`= 0`> 0`q> 0`> 0`1? 08? 0? 02@ 0@ 0:A 0YB 0_\B 0 B 0jC 0/E B*F D/F D+ G 07G D/H 0H 06I BI 0 J 0:K 0^MK 0<K CKU6LU*7LaLHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,(@ Z 6Times New Roman Regular*+s eH+6)nCorel(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0  3|x U  / ' Matos0Matos .   \  `&Times New Roman (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(;3$2#  0  .3  0  \  `(Times NewRomanTT3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)  "'USUS.,  _ XXMotiontoAdmit...  _Crim_.No.00000 t Page  1  #XX =#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# xGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List  ($USUS.,    5    _ԀSeeDepartmentofDefense,PolygraphProgram,AnnualReporttoCongress,1996. &  ($USUS.,    4    _ @ рThesefederalagenciesopenlyadvertiseits_poligraph_Ԁrequirement.TheFBIdoesatits  website,4) v$O  5  http://www.fbi.gov/employment/policies.htm6 $O   7 K.TheDEAdoessoatitswebsite,  4( $O  5  http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/job/agent/page-05.htm6$O&   7 T.TheSecretServicedoessoatitswebsite,  4+ $O  5  http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/opportunities_agent.htm6*$O>   7 Rl.TheCIAdoessoatitswebsite, t 4/ $O  5  http://www.cia.gov/cia/employment/reqframe.htm.6<$OP   7 ~Ԁ ` (.3$ !USUS.,     ($USUS.,    1    _ԀThefulltextofRule702provides  8  8`   S? SIfscientific,technical,orotherspecializedknowledgewillassist ? thetrieroffacttounderstandtheevidenceortodetermineafactin  issue,awitnessqualifiedasanexpertbyknowledge,skill,  experience,training,oreducation,maytestifytheretointheform G ofanopinionorotherwise. S(O$   ($USUS.,    3    _ԀAstheSupremeCourtsubsequentlymadeclearinKumho,thesesamefivefactorsmay  alsobeappliedbyadistrictcourtinassessingthereliabilityofanexperttestifyingonthebasisof   specializedor technicalknowledge.Kumho,526U.S.at149158(holdingthatdistrictcourt  properlyappliedtheDaubertfactorstoanengineeringexpertwhoopinedthatthetireblowout t ontheplaintiffsminivanwascausedbyamanufacturingdefect).http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/job/agent/page-05.htmhttp://www.fbi.gov/employment/policies.htm2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/opportunities_agent.htm2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  http://www.cia.gov/cia/employment/reqframe.htm.2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKh<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kh<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Kh<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7\(X7  ?i%2A`Arial?7](X7  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS&  d d[)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7_(X7  ?i%2A`Arial?7](X7  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS[)2dxd0KS.SampleKh<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong  d8dl6TypewriterKh<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  dd<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial   ($USUS.,    2    _ԀDauberthasresultedsoinfluentialinthisevidentiaryareathatRule702wasmodified,  effectiveDecember1,2000,tofollowitsrationale. !USUS.,  _X5XXX        INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTOFCOURT  FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO  UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA h *      Plaintiff    h *    _CRIM_.NO.99194(CCC) `    vs. `     h * @  DEFENDANT0    h * p  (# (#   Defendant    h * P  __*  * ` * *  * h * 0       MOTIONTOADMITPOLYGRAPHEXAMINATIONINTOEVIDENCE   TOTHEHONORABLECARMENC.CEREZO  UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTJUDGE  FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO    COMESNOWdefendant,representedbytheFederalPublicDefender,andrespectfully ` STATESandPRAYS:#XXXX5=#XXXX @ @I.IntroductionandPertinentFacts H   Mr.DefendantcurrentlystandschargedinaonecountIndictmentofpossessingwithintent   todistributemorethan5kilogramsofcocaine. ! #XXXXo#XXXX  OnNovember3,1999,apolygraphexaminationwasconductedondefendantbyMr., #! acertifiedpolygraphexaminer.Shortlyafterreceivingtheresultsoftheexamination,thesamewere X% # madeavailabletotheU.S.AttorneysOffice. 0'"%   ItistheintentionofMr.Defendanttopresenttheresultsofthepolygraphexaminationas )X$' evidenceatTrial.Basedontheargumentstobediscussedbelow,thedefenserequeststhisHonorable *0&) Courttoscheduleanevidentiaryhearinginwhichtheadmissibilityofthepolygraphexamination ,(+0 _bedetermined.Apretrialdeterminationofthisissuewillallowthepartiestodeterminespecifictrial  strategies,andwillcertainlyinfluenceonpleanegotiations.#XXXX#X5XXX p        @ II.CurrentSupremeCourtCaseLawonPolygraph t  #XXXX5 #XXXX  TheSupremeCourthasnotruledspecifically#XXXXZ #XXXXԀontheadmissibilityorexclusionofpolygraph T  examinationsinFederallitigation.ThemostrecentcaseonthisareaisU.S.vsScheffer,140L.Ed. ,h 2d413(1998).ThecasereachedtheSupremeCourtfromtheU.S.CourtAppealsfortheArmed @  Forces,theissuebeingtheadmissibilityofpolygraphevidence,inthecontextofcourtmarital.After   evaluatingRule707oftheMilitaryRulesofEvidence,whichspecificallyprohibitstheadmittance   ofpolygraphresults,theCourtupheldtheconstitutionalityofthesameandoverturnedtheCircuit  Court,whichhadadmittedtheresults. d   InthemainOpinion,determiningnottoadmitthepoligraphevidenceandratifingthe <x rationaleforMilitaryRuleofEvidence707,JusticeThomas#XXXX #XXXXԀtargets(1)thetestitself,(2)the P functionofthejuryindeterminingcredibility,(3)theinterestinavoidingcollaterallitigation,and ( (4)theaccusedrighttopresentevidence.HowevertheparticularitiesoftheSchefferdecisionpoint  thatthediscussionontheadmissibilityofpoligraphtestsiffarfromclosed. !   First,theMilitaryRulesofEvidencemakesanoutrightprohibitionontheadmissionof t# polygraphresults.ThereforetheCourt,insteadofspecificallyaddressingtheadmittanceofpolygraph L%  inregularcriminallitigation,wasconstruingtheconstitutionalityofRule707. $'`"   Secondly,andmoreimportantly,thecasewasnotdecidedbyamajorityoftheCourt (8!$ disagreeingwiththetechnicsoradmissibilityofpolygraphexaminations,butratherwithamajority *#& _agreeingontheresultsandtheconcurringmembersofthemajoritytakingaclearstandontheir ,$( rationaletoreachthesame_conclussion_.TheOpinionwasannouncedbyJusticeThomas,whichwas  joinedbyaconcurrencefiledbyJusticeKennedy,andthatconcurrencewasjoinedbyJustices   OConnor,_Ginsburg_Ԁand_Breyer_,andadissentbyJusticeStevens.ThesefourconcurringJustices, t  whileagreeingwiththeresultinthatspecificcase,differontherationaleofthemainopinion,and L  indeedarecloserontheirviewofpolygraphexaminationswiththedissent.Inhisconcurrentopinion $` JusticeKennedystated: 8  8   ` Inmyviewitshouldhavebeensufficienttodecidethiscasetoobserve,as   theprincipalopiniondoes,thatvariouscourtsandjurisdictions mayreachdiffering   conclusionsastowhetherpolygraphevidenceshouldbeadmitted....    8   ` Idoubt,though,thataruleofperseexclusioniswise,andsomelatercase  mightpresentamorecompellingcaseforintroductionofthetestimonythanthisone p does.ThoughtheconsiderablediscretiongiventothetrialCourtinadmittingor \ excludingscientificevidenceisnotaconstitutionalmandate,see_Daubert_Ԁvs._Merrel_ H Dow,thereissometensionbetweenthatruleandourholdingtoday.And,asJustice 4p Stevenspointsout,thereismuchinconsistencybetweentheGovernmentsextensive  \ useofpolygraphstoma#XXXX#XXXXkevitalsecuritydeterminationsandtheargumentsitmakes  H here,instressingtheaccuracyofthesetests. #XXXXx#X5XXX4   8   ` Withallrespect,moreover,itseemstheprincipalopinionoverreacheswhen   itrestsitsholdingontheadditionalgroundthatthejurysroleinmakingcredibility  determinationsisdiminishedwhenithearspolygraphevidence.Iaminsubstantial   agreementwithJusticeStevensobservationthattheargumentdemeansandmistakes ! theroleandcompetenceofjurorsindecidingthefactualquestionsofguiltor " innocence.Inthelastanalysistheprincipalopinionsaysitisunwisetoallowthejury # tohear aconclusionabouttheultimateissueattrial.Ihadthoughtthistired p$ argumenthadlongsincebeengivenitsdeservedreposeasacategoricalruleof `%  exclusion......Theprincipalopinionismadelessconvincingbyitscontradictingthe P&! rationaleofRule704adthewellconsideredreasonstheAdvisorycommitteerecited @'|" insupportofitsadoption0(l #   _#XXXX5O#XXXX  Giventheabove,itisstilltheprovidenceofthetrialcourt,underthespecificguidelinesof *L"% theirrespectiveCircuits,todeterminetheadmissibilityofpolygraphexaminations.Indeed,the +$$' concurringopinionbyJusticeKennedyforshadowsthattheissueisonewhichhasnotbeenresolved. -%) Ї@ III.ApplicableLegalStandardstoScientificEvidence  #XXXXZ!#XXXX  TheadmissibilityofPolygraphexaminations,likeallscientificevidence,isgovernedbyFed.   R.Evid.702,andbyitsinterpretativejurisprudence,mainlyDaubertv.MerrellDow t  Pharmaceuticals,509U.S.579,589(1993)#XXXXi##XXXX,andKumhoTirev.Carmichael,526U.S.137,147 L  (1999)#XXXX$#XXXX.Aswillbediscussedbelow,U.S.vsScheffer,140L.Ed.2d413(1998)#XXXXZ%#XXXX,didnotmodifythe $` applicabilityofthatstandard. 8    Fed.R.Evid.702allowsdulyqualifiedexpertstotestifyonthebasisof scientific    technicalor specializedknowledge.#  #  1      ׀TheSupremeCourtinDaubertv.MerrellDow   Pharmaceuticals,Inc.,supra,heldthatfederaltrialcourtjudges,whenfacedwithaprofferofexpert  scientifictestimony,mustdetermineattheoutsetwhetherthe reasoningormethodologyunderlying \ thetestimonyisscientificallyvalid....Id.at59293.AstheCourtrecognized,inacaseinvolving 4p scientificevidence,evidentiaryreliabilitywillbebaseduponscientificvalidity.Id.at590n.9.  H Significantly,forpurposesofthiscase,theSupremeCourtinDaubert,heldthatthisstandardapplies   bothto novelscientifictechniquesandto wellestablishedpropositions.Id.at592n.11.j  #  2          TheSupremeCourthasmadeclearthatfederaltrialjudges,pursuanttoFed.R.Evid.702, ! haveaspecial gatekeepingobligationtoinsurethatonly reliableexperttestimonybepresented l# tojurors.KumhoTirev.Carmichael,526U.S.137,147(1999)( InDaubert,thisCourtheldthat  FederalRuleofEvidence702imposesaspecialobligationuponatrialjudgetoensurethatanyand   all[expert]testimony...isnotonlyrelevant,butreliable.)(quotingDaubertv.MerrellDow t  Pharmaceuticals,509U.S.579,589(1993)). L  #XXXX%#XXXX  TheDaubertCourtsuggestedfivefactorsthattrialcourtsshouldordinarilyconsiderin $` determiningwhetherprofferedexperttestimonyisscientificallyvalid.&  #  3      ׀Thefirstandmostcritical 8  factoriswhetherthe theoryortechnique...canbe(andhasbeen)tested.Id.at593.AstheCourt   recognized,empiricaltestingistheessentialcriterionofscience:   8  8`    Scientificmethodologytodayisbasedongeneratinghypothesesand  testingthemtoseeiftheycanbefalsified;indeed,thismethodology p iswhatdistinguishessciencefromotherfieldsofhumaninquiry. \ Thestatementsconstitutingascientificexplanationmustbecapable H ofempiricaltest.Thecriterionofthescientificstatusofatheoryis 4p itsfalsifibility,ortestability. \` x` x Id.at593(internalquotationsandcitationsomitted). 4 A0  AsecondcloselyrelatedfactorthattheDaubertCourtsuggestedshould ordinarilybe   consideredisthe knownorpotentialrateoferroroftheparticulartechnique.Id.at594.Inthis   regard,theCourtcitedtheSeventhCircuitsdecisioninUnitedStatesv.Smith,869F.2d348,353 " 354(7thCir.1989),inwhichtheSeventhCircuitsurveyedstudiesconcerningtheerrorrateof X$ spectrographicvoiceidentificationtechniques.Id. 0&l!   AthirdfactorpointedtobytheCourtisthe existenceandmaintenanceofstandards  controllingthetechniquesoperation.Daubert,509U.S.at594.Asanexample,theSupreme   CourtcitedtheSecondCircuitsopinioninUnitedStatesv.Williams,583F.2d1194,1198(2dCir. t  1978),inwhichtheSecondCircuitobservedthatthe InternationalAssociationofVoice L  Identification...requiresthattenmatchesbefoundbeforeapositiveidentificationcanbemade. $` Id. 8    Fourth,theDaubertCourtheldthat generalacceptancecan...haveabearingonthe   inquiry.Id. Areliabilityassessmentdoesnotrequire,althoughitdoespermit,explicit   identificationofarelevantscientificcommunityandanexpressdeterminationofaparticulardegree  ofacceptancewithinthatcommunity.Id.(quotingUnitedStatesv.Downing,753F.2d1224,1242 \ (3dCir.1985)).AstheCourtrecognized, widespreadacceptancecanbeanimportantfactorin 4p rulingparticularevidenceadmissibleandaknowntechniquewhichhasbeenabletoattractonly  H minimalsupportwithinthecommunity...mayproperlybeviewedwithskepticism.Id.(quoting   Downing,753F.2dat1238)).    Finally,theDaubertCourtrecognizedthatanadditionalfactorwhichmaybeconsidered is ! whetherthetheoryortechniquehasbeensubjectedtopeerreviewandpublication.Id.at593.As l# theCourtrecognized, submissiontothescrutinyofthescientificcommunityisacomponentof D%  goodscience,inpartbecauseitincreasesthelikelihoodthatsubstantiveflawsinmethodologywill 'X" bedetected.Id.Accordingly, [t]hefactofpublication(orlackthereof)inapeerreviewedjournal (0!$ ...[is]arelevant,thoughnotdispositive,considerationinassessingthescientificvalidityofa *#& particulartechniqueormethodologyonwhichanopinionispremised.Id.at594. _ ,$(   Inprovidingtheabovefactors,theSupremeCourtemphasizedthattheinquiryunderFederal  RuleofEvidence702isa flexibleoneandthat,assuch,additionalfactorsmaybeconsidered.Id.     InGeneralElectricvsJoiner,533U.S.136(1997)theCourtheldthatthetrialcourts t  decisiontoadmitorrejectexpertwitnesstestimonyunderthe_Daubert_analysiswillnotbereversed L  onappealunlessitrisestoanabuseofdiscretion.#XXXX-#XXXX $` @0 0 IV.TheMannerinWhichDifferentCourtshadApplied   @E E the_Daubert_ԀStandardtoPolygraphExaminations   AӀ#XXXXwA#X5XXX  After_Daubert_thevariousCircuitshavedealindifferentmannerwiththeadmissibilityof   polygraphexaminations.TheFirstCircuithasaddressedthequestioninatangentialmanner,inU.S.  vsLynn,856F.2d430(1stCir.,1988).InthatcaseoneofthewitnessfortheGovernmenthadaplea x agreementwhichrequiredhimtosubmittopolygraphexaminations;failureofthesamewouldresult X innullificationoftheagreement.Defensecounseltriedtocrossthewitnessonthatarea,butwas 8t prohibitedfromdoingsobytheDistrictCourt,whodeterminedthatpolygraphexaminationswere T inherentlyunreliable.TheFirstCircuitstated 8 @R Moreover,polygraphresultsareadmissiblefor  4 reasonsotherthanprovingthesubstancecontained,andcitesU.S.vsBlack,684F2d841(7thCir.), " whichstandsforthepropositionthattheadmissibilityofpolygraphresultsisamatterofdistrict $ courtdiscretion. &!   TheFirstCircuithasneverconsideredpolygraphexaminationsunderthe_Daubert_#XXXX5B#X5XXXԀstandard, x( #  sinceLynncasewasdecided5yearsbeforetheSupremeCourtruledon_Daubert_.#XXXX53H#X5XXX X*"% _  MostotherCircuitshaveadmittedpolygraphsexaminationstolargerorlesserextent.#XXXX5I#X5XXXThe   FourthandFifthCircuitsadheretoapersebanonadmissibility,whiletheEigthCircuitallows   stipulatedpolygraphevidence,andhasbeenleaningtowardsincreasedadmissibility.TheNinth,   Third,Sixth,SeventhandTenthCircuitspermitpolygraphevidencepursuanttostipulationandother d  certaincircumstancesnotnecessarilyrelatedtotheresultsoftheexaminationitself,andwhichare D notpertinenthere.#XXXX5I#X5XXX $`    TwoDistrictsCourtshaveadmittedpolygraphresults,basedspecificallyontheDaubert @  analysis.InU.S.vsCrumby,895F.Supp.1354(D.Arizona,1995)theDistrictCourtofArizona   tackledanidenticalsituation:"acriminaldefendantwhoclaimshisinnocencehastakenandpassed  apolygraphexamination,andseekstointroducethispotentiallyexculpatoryevidence"Crumby,at  1357.Afteranextensivehearing,inwhichtheCourtexaminedtherequirementsofDaubertindetail,  andthemannerinwhichpolygraphexaminationscompliedwiththem,theCourtadmittedlimited d usageofpolygraphresults.T#XXXX56L#X5XXXheCourtstated: D 8  "Ingeneral,thecourtconcludesthatthematurationofthescienceofpolygraphy, $ ` whenproperlycoupledwithacautiousacceptanceofthissciencebyfederalcourts, !P willleadtoafairerandmorejustsystemofcriminalandciviljurisprudence.Courts "@ mustassistthetrieroffactinit'squesttoascertainthetruth,whileensuringthatthe "0 trieroffactisnotundulymisleadorprejudiced."O#    #XXXX5O#XXXX  SubmittingpolygraphexaminationstoastringentDaubertanalysis,theDistrictCourtthen %  proceededtoevaluatetheiradmittanceunderRule403oftheFederalRulesofEvidence. '" #XXXX R#X5XXX  Oncedeterminingthatthepolygraphwasadmitted,theCourtthenevaluatedtheeffectof t)!$ otherevidentiaryrulestodeterminethemannerandextentoftheadmissibility.ApplyingFed.R. T+#& Evid403theCourtdeterminedthat therecanbelittledoubtthatpolygraphevidence,ifreliable,is 4-p%( relevantevidencewithanenormousprobativevalue.Incasessuchasthepresentone,thepolygraph  examinationisprobativeastowhetherthesubjectisbeingtruthfulaboutwhetherheorshe   committedthecrimeinquestion.Clearlytheprobativevalueofsuchevidenceisbeyondquestion.     TheDistrictCourtalsoevaluatedotherconcerns,onparticularthattheJurywouldbe d  overwhelmedbytechnology,timeconsumptiononcollateralmatters,the auraoninfallibilitythe D testhas,andtheopinionbytheexpertregardingtheultimateissue.Intailoringitsadmissibilitythe $`  DistrictCourtdeterminedatpage1363: @  8   ` Theuseofpolygraphevidenceattrialmustbenarrowlytailoredrothe   circumstancesforwhichitisrelevant,anditmustbecircumscribedsoastolimitits  potentialprejudicialeffects.Polygraphevidencemaybeadmissibleunderanumber  ofFederalRulesofEvidence.TheCourtmustconsidertheinteractionofRules403,  404,608,703.ThepolygraphevidenceisadmissibleunderRule702.   8   ` ....Therefore,thepolygraphevidencemayonlybeusedtoimpeachor  corroboratethecredibilityoftheDefendant.Thus,ifthedefendanttakesthestand t andtestifiesthathedidnotcommitthecrime,andthegovernmentimpeacheshis d credibility,thentheDefendantmaysupporthiscredibilitywiththeuseofthe T polygraphevidence.Thecredibilityofthewitnesscanonlybesupportedwith D evidencethatDefendanttookapolygraphexaminationinconnectionwiththiscase 4p andpassedthesame.$ `   8   ` ...Thistestimonyisadmissibleunderthe impeachmentbycontradiction "@ exceptionto608(b)."0   8   ` ...Furthermore,Rule608(b)shouldbenarrowlyread,itshouldnotberead $ inamannerwhichprecludesacriminaldefendantfromsupportinghiscredibility %  whereithasbeenattacked.Apolygraphexaminationishighlyprobativeevidence &! ofacriminaldefendantspropensityfortruthfulnesswithrespecttotheissuesonthe '" case.#XXXX5IS#WXXXX( #     Interestingly,wheninScheffer#XXXXZ_#XXXXԀtheU.S.CourtAppealsfortheArmedForces#XXXX_#XXXXԀmadeits t*"% decisiontoadmitthepolygraph,beforethecasereachedtheSupremeCourt,itdidsoalongthelines L,$' followed#XXXXZ`#X5XXXinCrumby,whichistosayadmittingthepolygraph#XXXX5Ga#XXXXasrebuttalforanattackonthe  credibilityoftheaccused.#XXXXa#X5XXX     InU.S.vsGalbreth,908F.Supp.877(D.NewMexico,1995),thatDistrictCourtreached   aconsistentresultwithCrumby.InGalbreththeCourtmade,aspartofitsDaubertanalysis,a |  exhaustiveexaminationofcurrentpolygraphtechnologyandmethodology.Inmakingitsfinal \ determination,atpage895,theCourtstated: <x  8   ` TheCourtfindsthatDr,RaskinstestimonyisadmissibleunderFed.R. X  Evid.403.Theexperttestimonyishighlyprobativeofacriticalfactinissue,i.e.,  H  whethertheDefendantpossessedthewillfulmensreaatthetimehefailedtoreport 8  certainitemsofincome.Thisisso,becauseteaccuracyofthetestresultsin ( approximately95%.Inthelightofsuchanelevatedaccuracyrate,theresultsofthe  testarehighlyprobativeofwhetherDefendantdid,infact,realizethattheitemshe  failedtoreportshouldhavebeenreportedinthisincometaxreturns.   8   ` Ontheotherhand,thetestimonyinthiscaseisnotundulyprejudicial.There  islittledangerthatthejurywillconsiderthepolygraphtechniquetobeshrouded  with anauraofinfallibilitygiventhatDr.Raskinwillhimselftestifythatthe | techniqueisnotinfallible.Moreover,anyargumentthatthejurywillbeunableto l assessthetruevalidityofthepolygraphtechniquebecauseofthe auraof \ infallibilitythatsurroundsscientifictestimonyhasnoempiricalbasis....L   8   ` Furthermore,theGovernmentwillbeaffordedanopportunitytocross ,!h examineDr.RaskinandpresentitsownwitnesstorefuteanyofDr.Raskin "X testimonyrelatedtothepolygraphtechniqueingeneralortotheapplicationofthat  #H techniqueinthiscase.#XXXX5Tb#GdX5XXX#8   #XXXX5bk#X5XXX  Asseenfromtheabovedecisions,currentpolygraphexaminationsmeetalltherequirements %  oftheDauberttest.Polygraphstechnicshavebeenextensivelyreviewedandevaluated,bothby '" academicandpractitioner.Theyhavedeterminedappropriateprocedures,errorrate,standardsfor )!$  thetest,andacceptanceofthe_technique. |+#&   Thegeneralacceptanceofreliabilityofpolygraphexaminationsisextensive,andhasledto   itsbeingwidelyused,bothintheprivateindustry,andbytheUnitedStatesGovernment.#XXXX5k#ԀThe   FederalBureauofInvestigation,theSecretServiceandtheDrugEnforcementAdministration,the   NationalSecurityAgency,theCentralIntelligenceAgency,amongothers,usepolygraph |  examinationregularlyforpreemploymentevaluations,reviewofsecurityclearances,andevaluation T ofinformants.!  #  4       ,h    TheDepartmentofDefenseusespolygraphexaminationsextensivelyforemployment, @  securityclearancesdeterminations,andforperiodic updating.Theuseofpolygraphissoextensive   withintheDepartmentofDefensethatthisAgencycreatedthePolygraphInstitutetoprovide in  housetrainingandestablishitsownstandards.Asanexample,in1996theDepartmentofDefense  conducted12,548examinations.   #  5       d X5XXX  Evennoninvestigativeagenciesusepolygraphs.#XXXX5s#Asanexample,since1998theDepartment <x ofEnergyusespolygraphexamination.See64_CFR_Ԁ45062. <x   TheGovernment,initsprosecutorialcapacity,hasmadeextensiveuseofthepolygraph  P  duringdebriefings,witnessexaminationsandpleabargainingprocess.X5XXX !(   Itistheintentionofthedefensetopresentmoreextensiveexperttestimonyof_polygaphers_   attherequestedevidentiaryhearingonhowthepolygraphexaminationmadeondefendantcomplies   withallthe_Daubert_testrequirements,aswithcurrentpolygraphstandards.#XXXX5t#   @zzVI.ConclusionsandPrayers <x   Basedonalltheabove,defendantrespectfullyrequestthisHonorableCourttoSchedulean P  evidentiaryhearingtodeterminetheadmissibilityofthepolygraphresultsinthiscase. (  X5XXX  IHEREBYCERTIFY:ThatacopyoftheforegoingMotionwas#XXXX5x#X5XXXԀservedoncounselforthe   government,U.S.AttorneyGuillermoGil(Attn:AssistantU.S.AttorneyRoseVega)bydelivering  ittohisofficeattheFederalBuilding,Carlos_Chard;n_ԀAvenue,SanJuan,PuertoRico.#XXXX5x#X5XXX    InSanJuan,PuertoRico,thisFebruary5,2001. d #XXXX5z#XXXX  #XXXXz#X5XXX `     h   JosephC.Laws,Jr. D    `     h   FederalPublicDefender 4p    `     h      `     h   _____________________  @    `     h     0    `     h   AssistantFederalPublicDefender !     `     h   _USDC_ԄPR "    `     h   259F.D.Roosevelt #    `     h   _Hato_ԀRey,P.R.00918 $    `     h   TEL.(787)2814922 %  Ѐ    h   FAX.(787)2814899#XXXX5 {#