United States v. Traficant, Crim. A. No. CR82-148Y.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | Crim. A. No. CR82-148Y. |
| Citation | 566 F. Supp. 1046 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. James A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Stephen H. Jigger and Charles French, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Cleveland, Ohio, for the United States.
James A. Traficant, Jr., pro se.
Pending before the Court is the government's Motion in Limine requesting this Court to prohibit the introduction at trial of any evidence regarding psychological stress evaluation tests. Upon consideration, the motion is granted.
The psychological stress evaluation test results at issue in this case are the product of a voice stress analysis done by defendant Traficant's chosen examiner. Traficant opposes the government's motion and seeks to introduce the results of these tests at trial.
Voice stress analysis (VSA) is a method of lie detection. Voice stress analyzers and psychological stress evaluators (PSE) detect and measure subaudible microtremors in a person's voice. The amount of stress imposed on the speaker is alleged to affect the microtremors in his voice. The stress is allegedly produced by the speaker's deception. The first psychological stress evaluator was marketed in 1971.1 Reportedly, it was developed as a covert lie detection device which could be used without the attachment of sensors (as are necessary with polygraph tests) and hence could be employed without the knowledge of the subject being tested. Id. In the instant case, the PSE test was not done covertly. Rather, Traficant voluntarily submitted to the test and was aware of the testing while it was being performed.
Case law on point is sparse. This Court finds, however, that the long line of cases which reject the admissibility of polygraph test results at trial are analogous. Moreover, the decision to admit evidence based on scientific processes is left to the trial court, which has considerable discretion in this area. United States v. Franks, 511 F.2d 25, 33 (6th Cir.1975) (citing United States v. Stifel, 433 F.2d 431, 437 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 994, 91 S.Ct. 1232, 28 L.Ed.2d 531 (1971)).
The test at issue in this case purports to prove the truth of Traficant's responses to a series of questions put to him by the examiner. Traficant's responses were recorded on audiotape and these tapes were later examined through the use of a psychological stress evaluator to measure the amount of subaudible microtremor present in Traficant's tape recorded responses.
Considering the PSE test under the "general acceptance" standard first enunciated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), this Court cannot find that it is "sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixon v. Conway
...at trial of PSE [Psychological Stress Evaluator] results. In State v. Thompson, 381 So.2d 823 (La.1980) and United States v. Traficant, 566 F.Supp. 1046, 1047 (N.D.Ohio 1983), the courts found that the long line of cases which reject the admissibility of polygraph test results at trial is a......
-
People v. Drake
... ... Id.; Crim.P. 24(b)(1)(X). Trial courts are afforded broad discretion ... violated his right under the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution to a fair and impartial jury. We are ... Traficant, 566 F.Supp. 1046 (N.D. Ohio 1983); Neises v. Solomon ... ...
-
Sabag v. Continental South Dakota
...voice which is assumed to accompany conscious deception. See Heisse v. Vermont, 519 F.Supp. 36, 40 (D.Vt.1980); United States v. Traficant, 566 F.Supp. 1046, 1046 (N.D.Ohio 1983); and Horvath, Detecting Deception: The Promise and the Reality of Voice Stress Analysis, 27 J. Forensic Sci. 340......
-
Barrel of Fun, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...majority of those courts that have considered the issue have held that PSE evidence is inadmissible. United States v. Traficant, 566 F.Supp. 1046, 1047 (N.D.Ohio 1983); Caldwell v. State, 267 Ark. 1053, 594 S.W.2d 24, 28 (1980); State v. Makerson, 52 N.C.App. 149, 277 S.E.2d 869, 872 (1981)......