lie detector test in Maine

9 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2009 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maine 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Mottramgreen me · 1962 · cited in 4 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1974–1985 2 sentences 1982In an early case, the Law Court set forth the reason for excluding this type of evidence: “the lie detector test ... has not reached the state of scientific development and accuracy that permits admission of the results in evidence.” State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325, 329 , 184 A.2d 225, 228 (1962) (citing State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310 , 110 A.2d 588 (1954)). 1982In an early case, the Law Court set forth the reason for excluding this type of evidence: “the lie detector test ... has not reached the state of scientific development and accuracy that permits admission of the results in evidence.” State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325, 329 , 184 A.2d 225, 228 (1962) (citing State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310 , 110 A.2d 588 (1954)).	2	4
State v. McDonoughgreen me · 1976 · cited in 2 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1981–1985 2 sentences 1985Id. 1981State v. Fox, 257 Iowa 174 , 131 N.W.2d 684, 687 (1964); Williams v. State, 238 So.2d 137, 139 (Fla.D.C.A.), cert. denied, 241 So.2d 397 (Fla.1970); cf. State v. McDonough, Me., 350 A.2d 556, 562-63 (1976) (Not manifest error for State to refer to polygraph examination while rehabilitating witness after defendant referred to examination while attempting to impeach that witness’s testimony).	1	2
State v. Ledgergreen me · 1982 · cited in 2 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1982–1985 2 sentences 1985See, e.g., Ingerson, 448 A.2d at 880 ; Ledger, 444 A.2d at 415-16 ; Mottram, 158 Me. at 329 , 184 A.2d at 228 . 2 Because the results of a polygraph examination are entitled to no weight, the evidence that Heselton’s employer did not pursue such a test despite Heselton’s willingness to take it “likewise has no value for the fact finder.” Mottram, 158 Me. at 330 , 184 A.2d at 228 . 1982Recently, we again expressed our concern “with the reliability of the polygraph as an indicator of truthfulness, [citations omitted] and with the dangerous possibility that credibility [of a witness] will thence be evaluated by the device rather than by the trier of fact [citations omitted].” State v. Ledger, Me., 444 A.2d 404, 415-16 (1982).	1	2
State v. Burnhamgreen me · 1981 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993See Burnham, 427 A.2d at 971 . 1993Id.	1	1
Ingerson v. Stategreen me · 1982 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985 1 sentence 1985See, e.g., Ingerson, 448 A.2d at 880 ; Ledger, 444 A.2d at 415-16 ; Mottram, 158 Me. at 329 , 184 A.2d at 228 . 2 Because the results of a polygraph examination are entitled to no weight, the evidence that Heselton’s employer did not pursue such a test despite Heselton’s willingness to take it “likewise has no value for the fact finder.” Mottram, 158 Me. at 330 , 184 A.2d at 228 .	1	1
Williams v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1970 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 1 sentence 1981State v. Fox, 257 Iowa 174 , 131 N.W.2d 684, 687 (1964); Williams v. State, 238 So.2d 137, 139 (Fla.D.C.A.), cert. denied, 241 So.2d 397 (Fla.1970); cf. State v. McDonough, Me., 350 A.2d 556, 562-63 (1976) (Not manifest error for State to refer to polygraph examination while rehabilitating witness after defendant referred to examination while attempting to impeach that witness’s testimony).	1	1
State v. Traftongreen me · 1981 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 1 sentence 1981State v. Trafton, Me., 425 A.2d 1320, 1323 (1981); State v. Mower, Me., 314 A.2d 840 (1974); State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325, 330 , 184 A.2d 225, 228 (1962).	1	1
State v. Foxgreen iowa · 1964 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981State v. Fox, 257 Iowa 174 , 131 N.W.2d 684, 687 (1964); Williams v. State, 238 So.2d 137, 139 (Fla.D.C.A.), cert. denied, 241 So.2d 397 (Fla.1970); cf. State v. McDonough, Me., 350 A.2d 556, 562-63 (1976) (Not manifest error for State to refer to polygraph examination while rehabilitating witness after defendant referred to examination while attempting to impeach that witness’s testimony). 1981State v. Fox, 257 Iowa 174 , 131 N.W.2d 684, 687 (1964); Williams v. State, 238 So.2d 137, 139 (Fla.D.C.A.), cert. denied, 241 So.2d 397 (Fla.1970); cf. State v. McDonough, Me., 350 A.2d 556, 562-63 (1976) (Not manifest error for State to refer to polygraph examination while rehabilitating witness after defendant referred to examination while attempting to impeach that witness’s testimony).	1	1
State v. Gagnegreen me · 1976 · cited in 1 Maine opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 1 sentence 1980State v. Gagne, supra at 170.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Casale green me · 1954 2 sentences 1982In an early case, the Law Court set forth the reason for excluding this type of evidence: “the lie detector test ... has not reached the state of scientific development and accuracy that permits admission of the results in evidence.” State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325, 329 , 184 A.2d 225, 228 (1962) (citing State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310 , 110 A.2d 588 (1954)). 1982In an early case, the Law Court set forth the reason for excluding this type of evidence: “the lie detector test ... has not reached the state of scientific development and accuracy that permits admission of the results in evidence.” State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325, 329 , 184 A.2d 225, 228 (1962) (citing State v. Casale, 150 Me. 310 , 110 A.2d 588 (1954)).	2	1962–1982
People v. Barreto green calctapp · 1967 2 sentences 2009People v. Barreto, (1967) 256 Cal. App. 2d 392 , 64 Cal. Rptr. 211 . 2009People v. Barreto, (1967) 256 Cal. App. 2d 392 , 64 Cal. Rptr. 211 .	1	2009–2009
State v. Mower green me · 1974 1 sentence 1981State v. Trafton, Me., 425 A.2d 1320, 1323 (1981); State v. Mower, Me., 314 A.2d 840 (1974); State v. Mottram, 158 Me. 325, 330 , 184 A.2d 225, 228 (1962).	1	1981–1981
Monroe v. Florida Publishing Co. neutral fla · 1970 1 sentence 1981State v. Fox, 257 Iowa 174 , 131 N.W.2d 684, 687 (1964); Williams v. State, 238 So.2d 137, 139 (Fla.D.C.A.), cert. denied, 241 So.2d 397 (Fla.1970); cf. State v. McDonough, Me., 350 A.2d 556, 562-63 (1976) (Not manifest error for State to refer to polygraph examination while rehabilitating witness after defendant referred to examination while attempting to impeach that witness’s testimony).	1	1981–1981
State v. Mitchell green me · 1979 1 sentence 1980E. g., State v. Marquez, 113 Ariz. 540 , 558 P.2d 692 (1976); Johnson v. State, 166 So.2d 798 (Fla.App.1964); State v. Mitchell, Me., 402 A.2d 479 (1979); Commonwealth v. Garland, 475 Pa. 389 , 380 A.2d 777 (1977).	1	1980–1980
Commonwealth v. Johnson green pa · 1971 2 sentences 1980Appellant cites Commonwealth v. Johnson, 441 Pa. 237 , 272 A.2d 467 (1971), and People v. Rodgers, 66 Mich.App. 658 , 239 N.W.2d 701 (1976), each of which involved a deliberate attempt by the prosecution to introduce testimony that a witness had taken a lie detector test. 1980Appellant cites Commonwealth v. Johnson, 441 Pa. 237 , 272 A.2d 467 (1971), and People v. Rodgers, 66 Mich.App. 658 , 239 N.W.2d 701 (1976), each of which involved a deliberate attempt by the prosecution to introduce testimony that a witness had taken a lie detector test.	1	1980–1980
Commonwealth v. Garland green pa · 1977 2 sentences 1980E. g., State v. Marquez, 113 Ariz. 540 , 558 P.2d 692 (1976); Johnson v. State, 166 So.2d 798 (Fla.App.1964); State v. Mitchell, Me., 402 A.2d 479 (1979); Commonwealth v. Garland, 475 Pa. 389 , 380 A.2d 777 (1977). 1980E. g., State v. Marquez, 113 Ariz. 540 , 558 P.2d 692 (1976); Johnson v. State, 166 So.2d 798 (Fla.App.1964); State v. Mitchell, Me., 402 A.2d 479 (1979); Commonwealth v. Garland, 475 Pa. 389 , 380 A.2d 777 (1977).	1	1980–1980
State v. Marquez green ariz · 1976 2 sentences 1980E. g., State v. Marquez, 113 Ariz. 540 , 558 P.2d 692 (1976); Johnson v. State, 166 So.2d 798 (Fla.App.1964); State v. Mitchell, Me., 402 A.2d 479 (1979); Commonwealth v. Garland, 475 Pa. 389 , 380 A.2d 777 (1977). 1980E. g., State v. Marquez, 113 Ariz. 540 , 558 P.2d 692 (1976); Johnson v. State, 166 So.2d 798 (Fla.App.1964); State v. Mitchell, Me., 402 A.2d 479 (1979); Commonwealth v. Garland, 475 Pa. 389 , 380 A.2d 777 (1977).	1	1980–1980
State v. Davis green la · 1977 1 sentence 1980State v. Davis, La., 351 So.2d 771 (1977).	1	1980–1980
Johnson v. State green fladistctapp · 1964 1 sentence 1980E. g., State v. Marquez, 113 Ariz. 540 , 558 P.2d 692 (1976); Johnson v. State, 166 So.2d 798 (Fla.App.1964); State v. Mitchell, Me., 402 A.2d 479 (1979); Commonwealth v. Garland, 475 Pa. 389 , 380 A.2d 777 (1977).	1	1980–1980
People v. Yatooma green michctapp · 1978 2 sentences 1980In People v. Yatooma, 85 Mich.App. 236 , 271 N.W.2d 184 (1978), the trial court had denied a motion for mistrial based on an isolated and inadvertent statement by a prosecution witness on cross-examination that he had been required to take a lie detector test before receiving immunity from prosecution. 1980In People v. Yatooma, 85 Mich.App. 236 , 271 N.W.2d 184 (1978), the trial court had denied a motion for mistrial based on an isolated and inadvertent statement by a prosecution witness on cross-examination that he had been required to take a lie detector test before receiving immunity from prosecution.	1	1980–1980
State v. Refuge green la · 1972 2 sentences 1980Thus, in State v. Refuge, La., 270 So.2d 842 (1972), after the State had been improperly permitted to ask a hostile prosecution witness whether he had taken a lie detector test, the Supreme Court of Louisiana held the error harmless because, in the “total context of his testimony”, where “all the indi-cia” pointed to the witness's trial testimony as a belated fabrication intended to exculpate defendant, the error was “unlikely [to] contribute to any great degree in the jury’s belief” that the witness’s pretrial confession was true and his testimony at the trial untrue. 1980Id. at 847 .	1	1980–1980
People v. Rodgers neutral michctapp · 1976 2 sentences 1980Appellant cites Commonwealth v. Johnson, 441 Pa. 237 , 272 A.2d 467 (1971), and People v. Rodgers, 66 Mich.App. 658 , 239 N.W.2d 701 (1976), each of which involved a deliberate attempt by the prosecution to introduce testimony that a witness had taken a lie detector test. 1980Appellant cites Commonwealth v. Johnson, 441 Pa. 237 , 272 A.2d 467 (1971), and People v. Rodgers, 66 Mich.App. 658 , 239 N.W.2d 701 (1976), each of which involved a deliberate attempt by the prosecution to introduce testimony that a witness had taken a lie detector test.	1	1980–1980

Where else courts name it

CA 63 (1950–2025) IL 55 (1948–2026) GA 50 (1975–2016) TX 43 (1952–2023) MD 39 (1958–2025) PA 37 (1970–2021) FL 31 (1953–2010) NY 29 (1961–2025) LA 23 (1972–2022) OH 21 (1960–2024) MI 20 (1949–2025) NJ 19 (1961–2007) MS 18 (1955–2018) IN 16 (1974–2023) KS 14 (1959–2014) MA 12 (1973–2026) CO 12 (1959–2015) MN 11 (1952–2017) MO 11 (1960–2016) TN 10 (1958–2000) DC 9 (1978–2016) WA 9 (1979–2026) AZ 9 (1962–2016) NM 9 (1961–2018) ME 9 (1962–2009) AR 9 (1977–2010) UT 8 (1991–2026) IA 8 (1960–2009) KY 7 (1957–2016) SD 7 (1973–2014) OK 7 (1951–2009) HI 6 (1962–2019) AL 6 (1972–2002) VA 6 (1965–2010) SC 6 (1959–2022) NE 5 (1949–2018) DE 5 (1981–2023) NC 4 (1975–2009) ND 4 (1950–1998) WY 4 (1986–2020) OR 4 (1981–2020) WI 3 (1964–1974) ID 3 (1982–1991) AK 3 (1979–1996) RI 3 (1971–1994) MT 2 (1964–1978) NH 2 (1965–1993)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check