1 / 14

POLYGRAPHS IN 213 WRONGFUL CONVICTION EXONERATIONS

POLYGRAPHS IN 213 WRONGFUL CONVICTION EXONERATIONS. By Morrison Bonpasse BonPasse Exoneration Services at the 2013 Innocence Network Conference. Charlotte, NC. METHODOLOGY. CASES FOUND ON INTERNET: SEARCH “POLYGRAPH” “WRONGFUL CONVICTION” “EXONERATION”

odette-hardy
Download Presentation

POLYGRAPHS IN 213 WRONGFUL CONVICTION EXONERATIONS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. POLYGRAPHS IN 213WRONGFUL CONVICTION EXONERATIONS By Morrison Bonpasse BonPasse Exoneration Services at the 2013 Innocence Network Conference. Charlotte, NC

  2. METHODOLOGY CASES FOUND ON INTERNET: SEARCH “POLYGRAPH” “WRONGFUL CONVICTION” “EXONERATION” KEY SOURCE: NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONS NEWS ARTICLES; FEDERAL CASES(PACER)

  3. METHODOLOGY CATEGORIES EXONEREES DECEPTIVE/NON-DECEPTIVE WITNESSES/INFORMANTS SUPPORT EXONEREE INNOCENCE? TWO WAYS: DI or NDI BEFORE TRIAL/AFTER TRIAL

  4. METHODOLOGY Each case classified only once, regardless of # Beatrice Six PRIORITIES Examinations of exonerees over witnesses Rubin “Hurricane” Carter Pre-trial examinations over post trial Tim Masters, Lenell Geter

  5. 147 EXONEREE POLYGRAPHS 94 PASSED (NDI NO DECEPTION IND) 46 BEFORE TRIAL 48 AFTER TRIAL 30 UNCERTAIN RESULTS 23 FAILED (DI DECEPTION INDICATED)

  6. 66 POLYGRAPHS OF OTHERS 40 SUPPORTED INNOCENCE 25 BEFORE TRIAL 15 AFTER TRIAL 18 UNCERTAIN 8 NOT SUPPORT EX’EE INNOCENCE

  7. 117 POLYGRAPHS OF EXONEREES ONLY CLEAR RESULTS 94 (80%) PASS (NO DECEPTION INDICATED) 23 (20%) FAIL (DECEPTION INDICATED)

  8. 134 POLYGRAPHS SUPPORT INNOCENCE 94 EXONEREE POLYGRAPHS 46 BEFORE TRIAL 48 AFTER TRIAL 40 POLYGRAPHS OF OTHERS

  9. 31 POLYGRAPHS NOT SUPPORT INNOCENCE 23 EXONEREES FAIL 8 POLYGRAPHS OF OTHERS NOT POINT TO INNOCENCE

  10. OVERALL CLEAR RESULTS 165 TESTS WITH CLEAR RESULTS 134 (81%) SHOWING INNOCENCE 31 (19%) NOT SHOWING INNOCENCE

  11. NOTABLE NOTES FIRST POLYGRAPH EXONEREE: 1939. AMONG THE 46 PRE-TRIAL NDI – ONE OF THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE 40 INMATES NOW IN PRISON HAVE PASSED POLYGRAPHS ONE PRISON WARDEN REFUSED, SO FAR, PERMISSION FOR 2ND POLYGRAPH

  12. RECOMMENDATIONS POLYGRAPHS SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED FOR DEFENDANTS CLAIMING INNOCENCE AND FOR WITNESSES INFORMANTS IF FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE, OFFER 2ND EXAM CHANCE 2 FALSE POSITIVE 4% (=20% x 20%) NEUTRAL POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS PROSECUTORS AND LAWYERS SHOULD HEED POLYGRAPH RESULTS

  13. RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT’D) CONFESSIONS OBTAINED AFTER FAILED POLYGRAPH – NOT ADMIT AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSN. AND/OR OTHERS SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE 23 ACTUAL EXONEREE FAILURES AND 8 FAILURES OF OTHERS. PERIODICALLY UPDATE DATA IN ARTICLE

  14. FORENSIC TOOLS FOR CLAIMS OF INNOCENCE DNA IN 5% OF CASES A PERSON, SUBJECT TO POLYGRAPH, IN 100% OF CASES

More Related