364 P.3d 458
Alaska Ct. App.2015Background
- Thomas Alexander is charged with sexual abuse of a minor; his defense hired Dr. David Raskin, who administered a “control question” polygraph and concluded Alexander was likely truthful (>90%).
- The superior court held a consolidated Daubert hearing (also involving defendant Griffith) where competing experts (Raskin for defense; Iacono for State) disputed polygraph accuracy and vulnerabilities (countermeasures, examiner influence, scoring variability).
- The superior court ruled that the “control question” polygraph met Daubert’s threshold for scientific validity, but admitted the evidence only conditionally: (1) defendant must submit to a State-selected polygraph before trial, and (2) defendant must testify at trial and submit to cross-examination.
- The State sought appellate review to exclude polygraph evidence; Alexander cross-appealed the two conditions. Griffith later failed a State polygraph, pled guilty, and withdrew his cross-petition, leaving Alexander alone on appeal.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court under an abuse-of-discretion standard, reasoning Daubert review is deferential and the trial court’s safeguards (State exam, testimony requirement) reasonably address prejudice and hearsay concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Alexander) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether control-question polygraph evidence satisfies Daubert (scientific validity) | Polygraph lacks consensus reliability; should be excluded | Advances in polygraph science + Daubert (not Frye) mean admissible if reliable | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in finding threshold Daubert validity |
| Whether polygraph evidence can be applied in this case (prejudicial/hearsay concerns) | Even if valid, inherently prejudicial and confusing; should be excluded | Polygraph is probative and admissible with safeguards | Affirmed conditionally: admissible only with safeguards (State exam; defendant testifies) |
| Whether court may require State-administered polygraph before admitting defense polygraph | Such a requirement is improper burden on defendant | Court may require independent exam like any contested exam to test reliability | Affirmed: court may require independent exam; reasonable safeguard |
| Whether defendant must testify at trial to use polygraph examiner’s testimony (to avoid hearsay misuse) | Requiring testimony is coercive and undermines right not to testify | No undue burden posed; requirement prevents improper hearsay use and balances probative value | Affirmed: trial court reasonably required defendant to testify and face cross-examination |
Key Cases Cited
- Pulakis v. State, 476 P.2d 474 (Alaska 1970) (applying Frye and excluding polygraph evidence absent general scientific acceptance)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (establishing federal Rule-based reliability gate and non-exhaustive admissibility factors)
- State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999) (Alaska adopted Daubert; appellate review of admissibility is abuse of discretion)
- General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (standard for appellate review of trial court admissibility rulings)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (upholding categorical military exclusion of polygraph evidence as a rational evidentiary rule)