United States v. Specialist LAURO P. FRANCISCO
ARMY 20140541
| A.C.C.A. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- Appellant (Spc. Lauro Francisco) was convicted by a general court-martial of aggravated assault and assault consummated by battery for stabbing his partner after an earlier altercation.
- At the scene and at the hospital appellant initially reported an attack by three unknown assailants; the victim (SPC GM) gave a consistent account the next day.
- MP Detective (Detective MP) investigated, found no corroborating physical, video, or eyewitness evidence for the alleged McDonald’s attack, and re-interviewed appellant and SPC GM.
- Detective MP testified at trial that, after reviewing video and canvassing, she “knew they weren’t telling me the truth,” and later described appellant’s insistence he was truthful as looking "fake." Defense counsel did not object to this testimony.
- The panel convicted; appellant appealed, arguing admission of the detective’s opinion as to his truthfulness (so-called "human lie detector" testimony) was improper and prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Detective MP’s statements constituted inadmissible "human lie detector" testimony on direct and re-direct examination | Prosecution: testimony reflected investigative development and objective inconsistencies, not an impermissible opinion on guilt | Appellant: statements were an opinion on veracity that usurped members’ credibility determination | Court assumed error on direct/re-direct but found no material prejudice and affirmed conviction |
| Whether similar testimony on cross-examination was reversible error | Prosecution: cross elicited defense-favoring facts; any opinion flowed from defense questioning | Appellant: the detective’s comment that appellant’s protestations looked "fake" was improper lie-detector testimony | Court held cross testimony was invited error by defense, so appellant cannot complain; alternatively, no material prejudice |
| Whether failure to object and request cautionary instruction forfeited relief | Appellant: lack of cautionary instruction prejudiced rights | Appellant argued error was plain and obvious despite forfeiture | Court applied plain-error review, found no material prejudice given other corroborating evidence and standard jury instructions |
| Whether any admitted human-lie-detector testimony required reversal | Appellant: testimony unduly influenced members on credibility | Prosecution: testimony was limited, not pervasive, and members were properly instructed on credibility | Court held no reversible error; approved findings and sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (definition of waiver and plain error review)
- United States v. Kasper, 58 M.J. 314 (prohibits "human lie detector" testimony; requires cautionary instruction)
- United States v. Brooks, 64 M.J. 236 (limits on witness credibility opinions; members determine credibility)
- United States v. Birdsall, 47 M.J. 404 (prejudice standard for improper influence on factfinder)
- United States v. Eggen, 51 M.J. 159 (evaluate objectionable testimony in context)
- United States v. Martin, 75 M.J. 321 (invited error doctrine bars relief for error the party invited)
- United States v. Mullins, 69 M.J. 113 (no prejudice where record contains corroborating evidence)