Summary
The Supreme Court of Alaska consolidated proceedings involving the admissibility of comparison-question-technique polygraph evidence in three criminal cases. The court adopted a hybrid appellate standard of review for Daubert/Coon scientific-evidence determinations and held that CQT polygraph evidence had not been shown sufficiently reliable to satisfy that standard. The court addressed cases involving Jyzyk Sharpe, Thomas Henry Alexander, and Jeffery K. Holt.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What standard of appellate review applies to a superior court's Daubert/Coon determination concerning the admissibility of scientific evidence?
- Whether comparison-question-technique polygraph evidence has been shown to be scientifically valid and sufficiently reliable for admission under Alaska Evidence Rule 702, Daubert, and State v. Coon.
- Whether the superior court rulings admitting Alexander's and Sharpe's polygraph evidence should stand and whether the ruling excluding Holt's evidence should be affirmed.
Holdings
- Appellate review of a Daubert/Coon determination uses a hybrid standard: preliminary factual findings are reviewed for clear error, the scientific validity of the underlying theory or technique is reviewed independently, and case-specific evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Comparison-question-technique polygraph evidence has not been shown to satisfy the scientific-validity requirement of Daubert and Coon and cannot be admitted over objection under Alaska Evidence Rule 702.
- The superior court orders admitting Alexander's and Sharpe's CQT polygraph evidence were erroneous and were reversed.
- The superior court order excluding Holt's CQT polygraph evidence was affirmed.
Key quotations
“We conclude that appellate review of Daubert/Coon determinations should be conducted under a hybrid standard: the superior court’s preliminary factual determinations are reviewed for clear error; based on those findings and the evidence available, whether a particular scientific theory or technique has been shown to be “scientifically valid” under Daubert and Coon is a question of law to which we apply our independent judgment; and where proposed scientific evidence passes muster under that standard, the superior court’s case-specific determinations and further evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (at 2)
“Absent such data, we are unconvinced that the opinion of polygraph examiners amounts to “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” that “will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue,” as required under Evidence Rule 702.” (at 44)
“Absent substantial evidence demonstrating that CQT polygraph testing produces reliable results based on sound, verifiable science, the results of CQT polygraph examinations cannot be admitted in evidence over objection.” (at 44)
Factual background
In each consolidated criminal matter, the defendant hired polygraph examiner David Raskin to administer a comparison-question-technique polygraph examination concerning exculpatory statements. Raskin concluded that each defendant was truthful. The superior courts in Alexander's and Sharpe's cases admitted the proposed testimony, while the superior court in Holt's case excluded it after reviewing the Alexander record and additional evidence. The scientific evidence concerned the reliability, validity, error rate, and administration of CQT polygraph testing.
Procedural history
In Alexander's and Sharpe's cases, the superior courts ruled that comparison-question-technique polygraph testimony was admissible subject to specified conditions. The court of appeals affirmed Alexander's ruling and denied review in Sharpe's case. In Holt's case, the superior court excluded the polygraph evidence, Holt was convicted after trial, and the court of appeals certified the polygraph admissibility issue to the Alaska Supreme Court. The supreme court consolidated the matters, adopted a hybrid appellate standard of review, held CQT polygraph evidence inadmissible over objection, reversed the rulings admitting the evidence in Alexander's and Sharpe's cases, affirmed the exclusion ruling in Holt's case, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Alexander's and Sharpe's cases were remanded to the superior courts for further proceedings consistent with the opinion concerning their criminal charges. Holt's case was remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings as appropriate on his remaining points of appeal. The supreme court did not retain jurisdiction.