Law Grad Acquitted, Relies on Polygraph

Anonymous
Sep 7, 2007 9:57 AM CST

Dr. Rovner is a snake oil salesman looking to capitalize on a product that our courts should never allow into evidence.  His unabashed capitalist approach (press release, website, and self-serving comment above) speaks for itself.  We should hope that in time, this court’s bad ruling will be seen as the incorrect and unwise anomaly that it is.

I think polygraph evidence does little more than bolster credibility in a highly improper way.

Polygraphs should never be allowed into evidence in any trial, civil or criminal, anywhere for any reason.

Dr. Rovner should direct his professional endeavors to legitimate enterprises, not playing bottom feeder to perceived cash cows of defendants looking for ways to buy their way out of criminal convictions using such sham “evidence.”

I wonder if the judge at least allowed the state to cross examine the defendant in front of the jury while the defendant was hooked up there in court to the Rovner polygraph contraption?  If not, the judge compoiunded her poor ruling with unfairness and prejudice to the state.  If the judge was foolish enough to allow evidence of the instrument and “test” in at all, the opposing party should at least have had the chance to cross examine that instrument, since that machine is essentially the real witness, not Rovner.

Probably the real reason this was allowed in was the judge’s fear of reversal and her intimidation of the rights we afford those accused of crimes.  But she needs a reminder that such rights do not include this junk.  Hopefully next time the judge will let reason and not such fear influence her, and hopefully this will be the last time we hear of such injustice.

Flag this comment

Liz
Sep 7, 2007 12:53 PM CST

So a lie detector tests only physical responses, not reality. It bases that on the assumption that a person will have a physical reaction because that person knows that they are lying, but what about people who can control their physical respnses? Or what if the person BELIEVES they did nothing wrong? A criminal that BELIEVED they did nothing wrong is not uncommon. But this criminal may receive a positive polygraph test just because they are either physically controlled, insane or have incorrect beliefs.

Flag this comment

irwin eisenstein
Sep 7, 2007 3:00 PM CST

there are new technologies related to lie detection that should be allowed in court.  the fmri uses brain scans to detect lies.  It is significantly more reliable than what is admitted under Daubert..  It is time to over rule Frye.  In the Schaefer case that was before the Supreme Court, judge Gierke of the Court of Military Appeals determined that in certain situations lie detector evidence should be allowed at trial. 
    Justice Stevens wrote a dissent in Schaefer suggesting that the Government spends more than 24 million a year on lie detectors.  If they are as flawed as the court suggests, why are we spending that much money??

  In any case, the new tests should change The way that we look at lie detection.  Thank you Judge Gierke and Justice Stevens for recognizing that Lie detection should be allowed in some circumstances.

Flag this comment

Linda Petrovsky
Sep 8, 2007 8:35 PM CST

What does “Dr.” Rovner have in doctorate in, and what type of doctorate is it?  Signing his name as “Dr. Louis Rovner” rather than the proper form, e.g., his name followed by the type of degree, is at best misleading.

Flag this comment