The “error” came out in the witness’s first sentence.

MJ: Please be seated. The court will come to order. MJ: Okay. Members, it was early in the morning, and I wasn’t sure what word WITNESS had used, but counsel confirmed for me that she did say the word, “Polygraph.” The President of the United States, the Military Rule of Evidence that’s in the Manual for Courts-Martial, has decided that the results of a polygraph are so unreliable that the result cannot be used in any way, shape or form in a trial by court-martial. You are officers under the command of the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, as am I, as are most of the counsel in this courtroom. We have an obligation to follow that order of the President of the United States. The Supreme Court has considered whether or not the President acted reasonably in excluding polygraphs all together from use in trial by court-martial, and the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the President acted rationally in doing that because polygraph results are not sufficiently reliable enough to be used in a trial by court-martial. So, you must disregard completely what LE WITNESS said to you when she used the word polygraph, and any implication from the use of that one word. Do the members understand that? PRES: Yes, Your Honor. [Mumblings in agreement from the panel members and positive response.] MJ: Okay. I have an affirmative response from all members. Now, the Trial Counsel told me that he instructed LE WITNESS specifically not to use the word, “Polygraph,” when she was testifying. My conclusion is therefore that she cannot follow guidance. Therefore, I have excluded her as a witness in this trial. Do the members understand that?[Positive response.] MJ: If a witness can’t follow that simple guidance, then I don’t care to hear from her, and I don’t believe you ought to hear from her. Do any of the members have any trouble with that instruction? Can you completely ignore the use of the word, “Polygraph?” [Positive response.] MJ: I have an affirmative response from all members. Okay. Government, call your next witness please.

The military judge did not grant a mistrial, partly because the trial counsel gave a proffer of expected testimony and it was all bad for the defense. So the military judge’s rationale was that we’d benefitted by the witness’s mistake. I’m still not sure that was the correct way to evaluate any prejudice because the members basically got to hear that the client had failed a polygraph. And this was after the witness had been instructed on not to talk about the polygraph.

The victim of Thursday’s U.S. Army Reserve post shooting and his alleged killer both apparently worked together, Army officials said Friday. Both men were full-time Army Guard reserve soldiers assigned to the Army Medical Professional Management Command, spokeswoman Maj. Lenora Hutchinson told the AJC. It’s unclear whether they both were on-duty and working in the office building near the southeast corner of Fort Gillem when the shooting took place, but the alleged shooter was said to be in military uniform when he later turned himself in to police in Lake City, just south of the base. While one Army reservist died from multiple gunshot wounds Thursday evening, the other remains in military custody at a holding facility located somewhere on Fort Gillem, authorities told the AJC.

Davis & Leo on the “Sympathetic Detective” Interrogation Strategy Deborah Davis and Richard A. Leo (University of Nevada, Reno and University of San Francisco – School of Law) have posted Selling Confession: Setting the Stage with the ‘Sympathetic Detective with a Time-Limited Offer’ (Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: The effectiveness of an interrogation tactic dubbed the “sympathetic detective with a time limited offer” was tested. Participants read two versions of an interrogation transcript, with and without the tactic. Those who read the sympathetic detective version believed the detective had greater authority to determine whether and with what to charge the suspect, more beneficent intentions toward the suspect, and viewed confession as more wise. However, regression analyses indicated that for innocent suspects, only perceptions of the strength of evidence against the suspect and the detective’s beneficence and authority predicted the perceived wisdom of false confession. Interrogation tactics were generally effective, as indicated by participant recommendations of confession (versus invoking Miranda, denial, or continuing to talk without admitting guilt) for both innocent (16.7%) and guilty (74.4%) suspects; and reasons offered for participants’ recommendations for confession versus other choices generally conformed to those reported by real-life confessors and interrogation scholars.

Courtesy CrimProfBlog.