Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tomanelligreen2 sentences1987See, e.g., State v. Tomanelli, 153 Conn. 365, 370 , 216 A.2d 625 (1966) (‘general scientific acceptance of the Doppler-shift principle upon which police radar operates’); cf. Molino v. Board of Public Safety, [supra, 376] (‘unreliability of the polygraph test has resulted in its universal rejection’).” Despite this recent statement by this court, the defendant argues that the modern trend is away from the Frye test toward a “substantial acceptance” test, which would permit the trial judge to exercise discretion in admitting polygraph evidence. 1987See, e.g., State v. Tomanelli, 153 Conn. 365, 370 , 216 A.2d 625 (1966) (‘general scientific acceptance of the Doppler-shift principle upon which police radar operates’); cf. Molino v. Board of Public Safety, [supra, 376] (‘unreliability of the polygraph test has resulted in its universal rejection’).” Despite this recent statement by this court, the defendant argues that the modern trend is away from the Frye test toward a “substantial acceptance” test, which would permit the trial judge to exercise discretion in admitting polygraph evidence. | 2 | 2 |
Connecticut v. Portergreen2 sentences2016Second, in identifying the rule at issue, the court clearly set forth the scope of the rule as follows: "This court has repeatedly held that neither the results of a polygraph test nor the willingness of a witness to take such a test is admissible in Connecticut courts." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. at 93 , 698 A.2d 739 ; accord State v. Duntz, 223 Conn. 207 , 238, 613 A.2d 224 (1992) ("[d]ue to the questionable accuracy of the results of polygraph examinations, this court has consistently held that they are not admissible either for sub 2016Second, in identifying the rule at issue, the court clearly set forth the scope of the rule as follows: "This court has repeatedly held that neither the results of a polygraph test nor the willingness of a witness to take such a test is admissible in Connecticut courts." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. at 93 , 698 A.2d 739 ; accord State v. Duntz, 223 Conn. 207 , 238, 613 A.2d 224 (1992) ("[d]ue to the questionable accuracy of the results of polygraph examinations, this court has consistently held that they are not admissible either for sub | 1 | 2 |
State v. Duntzgreen2 sentences2016Second, in identifying the rule at issue, the court clearly set forth the scope of the rule as follows: "This court has repeatedly held that neither the results of a polygraph test nor the willingness of a witness to take such a test is admissible in Connecticut courts." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. at 93 , 698 A.2d 739 ; accord State v. Duntz, 223 Conn. 207 , 238, 613 A.2d 224 (1992) ("[d]ue to the questionable accuracy of the results of polygraph examinations, this court has consistently held that they are not admissible either for sub 2016Second, in identifying the rule at issue, the court clearly set forth the scope of the rule as follows: "This court has repeatedly held that neither the results of a polygraph test nor the willingness of a witness to take such a test is admissible in Connecticut courts." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. at 93 , 698 A.2d 739 ; accord State v. Duntz, 223 Conn. 207 , 238, 613 A.2d 224 (1992) ("[d]ue to the questionable accuracy of the results of polygraph examinations, this court has consistently held that they are not admissible either for sub | 1 | 1 |
State v. Necaisegreen2 sentences2007See State v. Necaise, 97 Conn. App. 214 , 232 n.14, 904 A.2d 245 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 942 , 912 A.2d 478 (2006). 12 With respect to the polygraph test, “polygraph evidence [is] per se inadmissible in all trial court proceedings in which the rules of evidence apply, and for all trial purposes, in Connecticut courts.” State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 94 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. 2007See State v. Necaise, 97 Conn. App. 214 , 232 n.14, 904 A.2d 245 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 942 , 912 A.2d 478 (2006). 12 With respect to the polygraph test, “polygraph evidence [is] per se inadmissible in all trial court proceedings in which the rules of evidence apply, and for all trial purposes, in Connecticut courts.” State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 94 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Necaisegreen2 sentences2007See State v. Necaise, 97 Conn. App. 214 , 232 n.14, 904 A.2d 245 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 942 , 912 A.2d 478 (2006). 12 With respect to the polygraph test, “polygraph evidence [is] per se inadmissible in all trial court proceedings in which the rules of evidence apply, and for all trial purposes, in Connecticut courts.” State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 94 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. 2007See State v. Necaise, 97 Conn. App. 214 , 232 n.14, 904 A.2d 245 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 942 , 912 A.2d 478 (2006). 12 With respect to the polygraph test, “polygraph evidence [is] per se inadmissible in all trial court proceedings in which the rules of evidence apply, and for all trial purposes, in Connecticut courts.” State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 94 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. | 1 | 1 |
Remeta v. Stovallgreen1 sentence2007See State v. Necaise, 97 Conn. App. 214 , 232 n.14, 904 A.2d 245 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 942 , 912 A.2d 478 (2006). 12 With respect to the polygraph test, “polygraph evidence [is] per se inadmissible in all trial court proceedings in which the rules of evidence apply, and for all trial purposes, in Connecticut courts.” State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 94 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. | 1 | 1 |
Lovilia Coal Co. v. Harveygreen1 sentence2007See State v. Necaise, 97 Conn. App. 214 , 232 n.14, 904 A.2d 245 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 942 , 912 A.2d 478 (2006). 12 With respect to the polygraph test, “polygraph evidence [is] per se inadmissible in all trial court proceedings in which the rules of evidence apply, and for all trial purposes, in Connecticut courts.” State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 94 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. | 1 | 1 |
Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Ass'ngreen1 sentence2007See State v. Necaise, 97 Conn. App. 214 , 232 n.14, 904 A.2d 245 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 942 , 912 A.2d 478 (2006). 12 With respect to the polygraph test, “polygraph evidence [is] per se inadmissible in all trial court proceedings in which the rules of evidence apply, and for all trial purposes, in Connecticut courts.” State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 94 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Webbergreen2 sentences1997See State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 276 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996). 1997See State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 276 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robert W. Black, United States of America v. Clinton Jay Boggsgreen1 sentence1987While it is true that a number of jurisdictions, both federal and state, permit such discretion in admitting polygraph results pursuant to a stipulation; see, e.g., Brown v. Darcy, 783 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Black, 684 F.2d 481, 482-84 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1043 , 103 S. Ct. 463 , 74 L. | 1 | 1 |
Robert J. Brown v. John F. Darcy, A/K/A Jack Darcy, an Individual Ducommun, Inc., a Corporationgreen1 sentence1987While it is true that a number of jurisdictions, both federal and state, permit such discretion in admitting polygraph results pursuant to a stipulation; see, e.g., Brown v. Darcy, 783 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Black, 684 F.2d 481, 482-84 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1043 , 103 S. Ct. 463 , 74 L. | 1 | 1 |
Molino v. Board of Public Safetygreen2 sentences1986See, e.g., State v. Tomanelli, 153 Conn. 365, 370 , 216 A.2d 625 (1966) (“general scientific acceptance of the Doppler-shift principle upon which police radar operates”); cf. Molino v. Board of Public Safety, 154 Conn. 368, 376 , 225 A.2d 805 (1966) (“unreliability of the polygraph test has resulted in its universal rejection”). 1986See, e.g., State v. Tomanelli, 153 Conn. 365, 370 , 216 A.2d 625 (1966) (“general scientific acceptance of the Doppler-shift principle upon which police radar operates”); cf. Molino v. Board of Public Safety, 154 Conn. 368, 376 , 225 A.2d 805 (1966) (“unreliability of the polygraph test has resulted in its universal rejection”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Plourde
green
2 sentences2016Second, in identifying the rule at issue, the court clearly set forth the scope of the rule as follows: "This court has repeatedly held that neither the results of a polygraph test nor the willingness of a witness to take such a test is admissible in Connecticut courts." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. at 93 , 698 A.2d 739 ; accord State v. Duntz, 223 Conn. 207 , 238, 613 A.2d 224 (1992) ("[d]ue to the questionable accuracy of the results of polygraph examinations, this court has consistently held that they are not admissible either for sub 2016Second, in identifying the rule at issue, the court clearly set forth the scope of the rule as follows: "This court has repeatedly held that neither the results of a polygraph test nor the willingness of a witness to take such a test is admissible in Connecticut courts." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. at 93 , 698 A.2d 739 ; accord State v. Duntz, 223 Conn. 207 , 238, 613 A.2d 224 (1992) ("[d]ue to the questionable accuracy of the results of polygraph examinations, this court has consistently held that they are not admissible either for sub | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Connecticut v. Plourde
green
1 sentence2016Second, in identifying the rule at issue, the court clearly set forth the scope of the rule as follows: "This court has repeatedly held that neither the results of a polygraph test nor the willingness of a witness to take such a test is admissible in Connecticut courts." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. at 93 , 698 A.2d 739 ; accord State v. Duntz, 223 Conn. 207 , 238, 613 A.2d 224 (1992) ("[d]ue to the questionable accuracy of the results of polygraph examinations, this court has consistently held that they are not admissible either for sub | 1 | 2016–2016 |
California v. Radke
green
1 sentence2016Second, in identifying the rule at issue, the court clearly set forth the scope of the rule as follows: "This court has repeatedly held that neither the results of a polygraph test nor the willingness of a witness to take such a test is admissible in Connecticut courts." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. at 93 , 698 A.2d 739 ; accord State v. Duntz, 223 Conn. 207 , 238, 613 A.2d 224 (1992) ("[d]ue to the questionable accuracy of the results of polygraph examinations, this court has consistently held that they are not admissible either for sub | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Widlak
green
2 sentences2006“Our law does not require the state to prove that all conditions [of probation] alleged were violated; it is sufficient to prove that one was violated.” State v. Widlak, 74 Conn. App. 364, 370 , 812 A.2d 134 (2002), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 902 , 823 A.2d 1222 (2003). 2006“Our law does not require the state to prove that all conditions [of probation] alleged were violated; it is sufficient to prove that one was violated.” State v. Widlak, 74 Conn. App. 364, 370 , 812 A.2d 134 (2002), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 902 , 823 A.2d 1222 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Mazumdar v. Mazumdar
neutral
1 sentence2006“Our law does not require the state to prove that all conditions [of probation] alleged were violated; it is sufficient to prove that one was violated.” State v. Widlak, 74 Conn. App. 364, 370 , 812 A.2d 134 (2002), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 902 , 823 A.2d 1222 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Widlak
green
1 sentence2006“Our law does not require the state to prove that all conditions [of probation] alleged were violated; it is sufficient to prove that one was violated.” State v. Widlak, 74 Conn. App. 364, 370 , 812 A.2d 134 (2002), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 902 , 823 A.2d 1222 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Esposito
green
1 sentence1997Even under the Daubert rule, the evidence must be shown to be relevant and reliable to be admissible. . . . [T]he defendant bore the burden of creating a factual record before the trial court that the polygraph test possesses sufficient reliability to justify its introduction as scientific evi dence.” (Citation omitted; emphasis added.) Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997The trial court, relying upon our failure to adopt Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 , 125 L. 1997The trial court, relying upon our failure to adopt Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 , 125 L. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences1996The defendant urged the trial court to admit this evidence, despite the general rule barring polygraph evidence; State v. Miller, 202 Conn. 463, 484-86 , 522 A.2d 249 (1987); because of the change in the standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence wrought by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert . 1996The defendant urged the trial court to admit this evidence, despite the general rule barring polygraph evidence; State v. Miller, 202 Conn. 463, 484-86 , 522 A.2d 249 (1987); because of the change in the standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence wrought by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Pellegrino
green
2 sentences1988I Because success on his insufficiency of the evidence claim would entirely shield the defendant from further criminal proceedings; State v. Pellegrino, 194 Conn. 279, 294 , 480 A.2d 537 (1984); we turn to this issue first. 1988I Because success on his insufficiency of the evidence claim would entirely shield the defendant from further criminal proceedings; State v. Pellegrino, 194 Conn. 279, 294 , 480 A.2d 537 (1984); we turn to this issue first. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Country v. Parratt
green
1 sentence1987While it is true that a number of jurisdictions, both federal and state, permit such discretion in admitting polygraph results pursuant to a stipulation; see, e.g., Brown v. Darcy, 783 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Black, 684 F.2d 481, 482-84 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1043 , 103 S. Ct. 463 , 74 L. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Black v. United States
green
1 sentence1987While it is true that a number of jurisdictions, both federal and state, permit such discretion in admitting polygraph results pursuant to a stipulation; see, e.g., Brown v. Darcy, 783 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Black, 684 F.2d 481, 482-84 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1043 , 103 S. Ct. 463 , 74 L. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Perrine v. Mossinghoff
green
1 sentence1987While it is true that a number of jurisdictions, both federal and state, permit such discretion in admitting polygraph results pursuant to a stipulation; see, e.g., Brown v. Darcy, 783 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Black, 684 F.2d 481, 482-84 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1043 , 103 S. Ct. 463 , 74 L. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Frazee v. Civil Service Board
green
2 sentences1966The plaintiffs were not charged with a refusal to obey an allegedly valid order to take the polygraph test, as was the case in DeVito v. Civil Service Commission, 404 Pa. 354, 359 , 172 A.2d 161 , in which the court held that the refusal to obey such an order was not a just cause for a dismissal, or in McCain v. Sheridan, 160 Cal. App. 2d 174, 177 , 324 P.2d 923 , and Frazee v. Civil Service Board, 170 Cal. App. 2d 333, 335 , 338 P.2d 943 , in which dismissals were upheld because of such refusals where the officers involved were implicated in a crime, or in Fischera v. State Personnel Board, 2 1966The plaintiffs were not charged with a refusal to obey an allegedly valid order to take the polygraph test, as was the case in DeVito v. Civil Service Commission, 404 Pa. 354, 359 , 172 A.2d 161 , in which the court held that the refusal to obey such an order was not a just cause for a dismissal, or in McCain v. Sheridan, 160 Cal. App. 2d 174, 177 , 324 P.2d 923 , and Frazee v. Civil Service Board, 170 Cal. App. 2d 333, 335 , 338 P.2d 943 , in which dismissals were upheld because of such refusals where the officers involved were implicated in a crime, or in Fischera v. State Personnel Board, 2 | 1 | 1966–1966 |
DeVito v. Civil Service Commission
green
1 sentence1966The plaintiffs were not charged with a refusal to obey an allegedly valid order to take the polygraph test, as was the case in DeVito v. Civil Service Commission, 404 Pa. 354, 359 , 172 A.2d 161 , in which the court held that the refusal to obey such an order was not a just cause for a dismissal, or in McCain v. Sheridan, 160 Cal. App. 2d 174, 177 , 324 P.2d 923 , and Frazee v. Civil Service Board, 170 Cal. App. 2d 333, 335 , 338 P.2d 943 , in which dismissals were upheld because of such refusals where the officers involved were implicated in a crime, or in Fischera v. State Personnel Board, 2 | 1 | 1966–1966 |
McCain v. Sheridan
green
2 sentences1966The plaintiffs were not charged with a refusal to obey an allegedly valid order to take the polygraph test, as was the case in DeVito v. Civil Service Commission, 404 Pa. 354, 359 , 172 A.2d 161 , in which the court held that the refusal to obey such an order was not a just cause for a dismissal, or in McCain v. Sheridan, 160 Cal. App. 2d 174, 177 , 324 P.2d 923 , and Frazee v. Civil Service Board, 170 Cal. App. 2d 333, 335 , 338 P.2d 943 , in which dismissals were upheld because of such refusals where the officers involved were implicated in a crime, or in Fischera v. State Personnel Board, 2 1966The plaintiffs were not charged with a refusal to obey an allegedly valid order to take the polygraph test, as was the case in DeVito v. Civil Service Commission, 404 Pa. 354, 359 , 172 A.2d 161 , in which the court held that the refusal to obey such an order was not a just cause for a dismissal, or in McCain v. Sheridan, 160 Cal. App. 2d 174, 177 , 324 P.2d 923 , and Frazee v. Civil Service Board, 170 Cal. App. 2d 333, 335 , 338 P.2d 943 , in which dismissals were upheld because of such refusals where the officers involved were implicated in a crime, or in Fischera v. State Personnel Board, 2 | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Fichera v. State Personnel Board
green
2 sentences1966The plaintiffs were not charged with a refusal to obey an allegedly valid order to take the polygraph test, as was the case in DeVito v. Civil Service Commission, 404 Pa. 354, 359 , 172 A.2d 161 , in which the court held that the refusal to obey such an order was not a just cause for a dismissal, or in McCain v. Sheridan, 160 Cal. App. 2d 174, 177 , 324 P.2d 923 , and Frazee v. Civil Service Board, 170 Cal. App. 2d 333, 335 , 338 P.2d 943 , in which dismissals were upheld because of such refusals where the officers involved were implicated in a crime, or in Fischera v. State Personnel Board, 2 1966The plaintiffs were not charged with a refusal to obey an allegedly valid order to take the polygraph test, as was the case in DeVito v. Civil Service Commission, 404 Pa. 354, 359 , 172 A.2d 161 , in which the court held that the refusal to obey such an order was not a just cause for a dismissal, or in McCain v. Sheridan, 160 Cal. App. 2d 174, 177 , 324 P.2d 923 , and Frazee v. Civil Service Board, 170 Cal. App. 2d 333, 335 , 338 P.2d 943 , in which dismissals were upheld because of such refusals where the officers involved were implicated in a crime, or in Fischera v. State Personnel Board, 2 | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.