Too often there’s reasons not to allow a polygraph as evidence in trial. In this case, a federal judge says he’d allow it into evidence, but it wasn’t done right when the federal judge on trial took it. Guess these guys won’t be playing golf together.
By JUAN A. LOZANOAssociated Press
The judge presiding over the case of U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent denied a motion to have the two tests considered as evidence. Kent’s attorneys said he passed the exams, showing he is innocent of the charges.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, a Florida jurist appointed to the case, said while he believes polygraph exams can be admitted at trial, he felt the ones performed on Kent in August and September were done incorrectly and contained deficiencies.
“There is no doubt in my mind, given a proper examination, polygraph evidence should be and ought to be admitted,” Vinson said. “In this case, deficiencies arise from the processes of the (polygraph examiner).”
For Full Story Motion To Allow Polygraph OTHER STORIES OF INTEREST
