United States v. Knapp
2014 CAAF LEXIS 54
| C.A.A.F. | 2014Background
- Appellant was convicted by general court-martial of aggravated sexual assault under Article 120, UCMJ, with a dishonorable discharge, confinement, forfeiture, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand; the convening authority approved, and the AFCCA affirmed.
- Special Agent Peachey of AFOSI testified that he was trained to detect deception from nonverbal cues and concluded Appellant’s statements were deceptive during questioning.
- Defense opened acknowledging the sex occurred and contended that consent was at issue; witness would corroborate consent.
- SA Peachey testified on direct, cross, and redirect about nonverbal cues and a red flush on Appellant’s face when discussing the incident; defense did not object.
- The military judge did not provide a specific “human lie detector” instruction; the trial record included a ten-minute confession clip and a longer interrogation recording introduced by the defense.
- Before deliberations, the general credibility instruction was given, but there was no cautionary instruction disallowing human lie detector testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether human lie detector testimony was admissible | Government contends rebuttal of defense claim; testimony limited to credibility | Kasper dictates such testimony usurps jurors’ function | Error; impermissible testimony. |
| Whether error was preserved or plain error | No timely objection; error reviewed for plain error | Objection not raised; plain error must be shown | Plain error established. |
| Whether admission of the testimony was prejudicial | Evidence supported by other proof; minimized prejudice | Testimony unduly influenced credibility assessment | Prejudicial error; materially affected defense. |
| Whether the military judge failed to instruct to disregard the testimony | No instruction given; caselaw requires cautionary instruction | Failure to instruct contributed to prejudice | Judgment reversed; retrial authorized. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kasper, 58 M.J. 314 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (human lie detector testimony inadmissible; usurps jurors’ function)
- United States v. Brooks, 64 M.J. 325 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (admission of victim’s testimony requires cautionary guidance; limited corroboration may reduce impact)
- United States v. Mullins, 69 M.J. 113 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (plain error analysis; specific instruction evaluation)
- United States v. Birdsall, 47 M.J. 404 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (court emphasizes exclusive role of members in weighing credibility)
- Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013) (briefly permits physical reaction evidence; cannot exceed limits of persuasion)