Today in Supreme Court History: March 31, 1962

3/31/1962: Justice Charles Whittaker resigns.

Justice Charles Whittaker

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (decided March 31, 1997): state judge should have known sexual assaults would inculpate him under 12 U.S.C. §242 (the criminal counterpart to 42 U.S.C. §1983) even though statute does not mention sexual crimes and Court has not directly ruled on similar facts; affirms conviction

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (decided March 31, 1977): victims of union’s discrimination against black and hispanic workers (demonstrated by “pervasive” inequalities in promotions) are entitled to retroactive seniority

Pfaff v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 312 U.S. 646 (decided March 31, 1941): apportioning to deceased partner the equitable share of receivable accounts even though he kept his accounts on a cash (not accrual) basis

Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U.S. 320 (decided March 31, 2015): Medicaid Act does not provide private right of action for healthcare providers to sue state (Idaho) for setting reimbursement lower than required by Act

Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 556 U.S. 163 (decided March 31, 2009): Congressional resolution apologizing for conquering Hawaii did not strip state of power to sell state lands

New Jersey v. Delaware, 552 U.S. 597 (decided March 31, 2008): Delaware (per New Jersey v. Delaware, 1934) owns all of the Delaware River, up to the New Jersey low water mark. Here the Court won’t even let New Jersey build a natural gas unloading terminal which would stick out into the river.

United States v. U.S. Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360 (decided March 31, 1998): Art. I, §9, cl. 5: “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State” (this was to prevent Congress from preferring states with busy ports); here, the Court holds that the Court of International Trade (its only courthouse is in lower Manhattan; I’ve passed it many times on my way to appearances at 71 Thomas Street on meatball slip and fall lawsuits) had jurisdiction over a suit to recover “harbor maintenance tax”, and holds that the tax (paid by anyone shipping through a port) violates the above clause, insofar as it’s levied on exporters

Badgerow v. Walters, 595 U.S. — (decided March 31, 2022): in deciding to confirm/vacate arbitration award (as opposed to compelling arbitration), federal court looks only to procedural defects alleged, and does not rule on substantive controversy (which involved federal issue; because this was not to be ruled on, no federal court jurisdiction and case remanded to state court)

Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (decided March 31, 1998): Seventh Amendment (right to jury trial in actions “at law”) supersedes statutory language; copyright damages (“at law” and not “equitable” issue) are to be decided by jury even though statute says “court” does it (damages had to do with showings of those priceless gems, “Who’s the Boss”, “Silver Spoons”, “Hart to Hart” and “T.J. Hooker” — how much are those shows worth? — I bet jury selection was a circus — could plaintiff’s attorney get a PBS watcher excused “for cause”?)

United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (decided March 31, 1998): rule in court martial proceedings excluding polygraph evidence (here, it would have corroborated officer’s denying meth use) did not violate Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to fair trial and to put on a defense

[apedad]

Re: United States v. Scheffer

Facts of the case

While defending himself before a military court martial on, among other things, substance abuse charges, airman Edward G. Scheffer sought to introduce his polygraph examination results. The results indicated there was "no deception" in Scheffer's denial that he used drugs while enlisted. Relying on Military Rule of Evidence 707 ("Rule 707"), prohibiting the use of polygraph results in court-martial proceedings, the military judge refused Scheffer's request to admit his results into evidence. On successive appeals, following his conviction on all charges, the Air Force Court of Appeals affirmed but the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reversed, finding the evidentiary exclusion to be unconstitutional. The United States appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question

Does Military Rule of Evidence 707, excluding the admission of polygraph results into evidence, violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a fair defense?

Conclusion

No. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that Rule 707 was consistent with the legitimate interest of state and federal authorities to admit only reliable evidence. In addition to noting the even-handed scope of Rule 707, excluding from evidence both favorable and unfavorable polygraph results, the Court emphasized the poor reliability of polygraph evidence as a whole. In the absence of sounder detection methods, the Court noted that the fundamental premise of the criminal justice system is that juries are the ultimate and most reliable evaluators of credibility and truthfulness. (oyez)

I'm a little torn on this one.

I agree polygraph results can be unreliable but at the same time a defendant should be able to avail any and all sources to show they're not guilty.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I feel the same way. But military justice must be a different world.

[apedad]

I was an AFOSI Special Agent for 10 years and it didn't seem to me to be different.

Miranda, 4A (search warrants), evidence gathering and handling, courts, appeals, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47 of the United States Code), etc., are all 'civilian' requirements.

And yes, military justice does have additional elements like non-judicial punishment (for military things like disobeying a lawful order, etc.), but the criminal requirements and protections are the same as in the civilian world.

[Dan Schiavetta]

apedad,

A valuable insight. Thanks!

[Frank Drackman]

Except that the "Convening Authority" can do what he/she wants in the end.

[Dilan Esper]

I have the hard-ass position against polygraphs. They aren’t science, they don’t detect lies (they are misnamed “lie detectors”), and they are a genuinely pernicious technology. I would actually go further than current law and not only say that they are inadmissible but that it is a due process violation for a government official to even suggest one in a criminal investigation. I would also ban their use by the FBI, CIA, and any other governmental agency, state or federal. They are a scourge. I would also ban the private sale of polygraph machines and the offering of polygraph tests in exchange for money.

The equivalent of what we have now is if large swaths of the government convinced of the value of astrology and using star charts to hire personnel and conduct investigations. Or maybe if we used Scientology e-meters and auditing techniques to do the same thing. Polygraphs are terrible and the closer we can get to getting rid of them entirely, the better.

[bernard11]

Yes. They are pretty worthless.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I agree with you except for banning polygraph tests, same as not banning astrology columns and "experts".

If they are unreliable for the prosecution, they are unreliable for the defense.
* If the defendant's test had shown him guilty, would he have insisted on showing it in court? Not likely!
* Did the defendant take the test first, then want it shown as evidence? Or did he argue to introduce it before he knew the results? I have my suspicions.

I have a small personal experience with these tests. My father took one for a civilian job at a nuclear missile base in the 1960s, and was laughing about how easy it was to fool. (He had a strange sense of humor, and a streak of curiosity which makes me think he was more interested in seeing if he could fool it than actually fooling it.) Whether or not he did fool it, or it correctly indicated he was no threat, I do not know, and I don't know what questions he tried to fool it on or any other details. But I always remembered later how these tricks were already known and used.

[David Nieporent]

I agree polygraph results can be unreliable but at the same time a defendant should be able to avail any and all sources to show they’re not guilty.

Can a defendant introduce a tarot card reading under your theory?

[apedad]

Sure!

As the decision noted, ". . . juries are the ultimate and most reliable evaluators of credibility and truthfulness."

You (defendant), want to put your creditability on the line with the jury by using tarot cards?

Go for it!