Grits for Breakfast: CCA oks junk science

[vy65]

The revocation proceedings were brought because he failed to meet the terms of probation. The failures included failure to pay fines, as well as his being unsuccessfully discharged from treatment. So even without anything related to the polygraph, he was still in violation of his probation due to his failure to pay the fines.

Judges aren't required to grant probation, and they can set any terms they wish. , the word "probation" literally means "testing". It's basically a test to see of the criminal can follow the rules. No one has to prove that an additional crime has been committed. Associating with a known felon is not a crime, but can be grounds for revoking probation. The same for consumption of alcohol, possession of a firearm, leaving the county, etc. In this case, the judge actually made the polygraphs part of the terms of probation. If the guy doesn't meet the terms, tough . He can serve his actual sentence. You know - the one he got for screwing a child?

I'm not so sure this is right - but I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I could very well be wrong about criminal procedure.

From what I've seen, a trial is required to officially revoke a criminal's probation. Given revocation requires a full-blown trial, all the normal rules of evidence, procedure, etc... apply. And because it's a trial, a judicial order is (obviously) required to revoke probation.

From what I've read, the sole issue in Leonard was whether to accept an expert's testimony -- testimony which relied solely on an inadmissible type of evidence. As the Court put it, Leonard was essentially tried-by-polygraph. Given an inadmissible type of evidence was the sole basis for his parole-revocation, the trial court got it wrong and was reversed.

You're right that probation isn't required, and you might be right that a wide array of conditions can be placed on parole (the part about "additional crimes" is wholly irrelevant). What you're getting wrong is the fact that a trial (with all applicable rules of evidence and procedure) is required to "officially" revoke parole. To the extent that a trial is necessary, you can't bootstrap in inadmissible evidence under the guise that 1) it was a condition to parole or 2) an expert relied upon it.

[vy65]

How about some facts, instead of all the bull ?

First of all, he was not sent to prison because of failed polygraph tests. He was sent to prison because he had been charged with aggravated sexual assault of a minor, and was allowed instead to plead guilty to injury to a child. He was convicted of a crime - without the use of a polygraph. That's why he went to prison. Period. The fact that he was granted probation to begin with is probably the only judicial abuse involved.

The revocation proceedings were brought because he failed to meet the terms of probation. The failures included failure to pay fines, as well as his being unsuccessfully discharged from treatment. So even without anything related to the polygraph, he was still in violation of his probation due to his failure to pay the fines.

It's one thing for the revocation proceedings to be brought on a particular claim. It's another thing entirely for that claim to be the basis of a judge's decision.

From your own link

FACTS
Appellant was indicted for aggravated sexual assault. He agreed to plead guilty to injury to a child and was placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision. Appellant also agreed to the conditions of community supervision, including that he complete sex offender evaluation and treatment and submit to polygraph exams, on which he was required to show no deception. The State filed a motion to proceed to adjudication, alleging that Appellant had been unsuccessfully discharged from treatment, failed to make satisfactory progress in treatment, failed to pass polygraph exams, and failed to pay fines. At the adjudication hearing, the State waived the failed polygraph and failure to pay fines allegations. Appellant pleaded not true to the allegations of being unsuccessfully discharged and to not making satisfactory progress in treatment. Over Appellant's proper objection, the State called the sex offender therapist who had been treating Appellant, psychotherapist George Michael Strain. Strain testified that Appellant was discharged from treatment for failing five polygraphs. Strain further testified that the use of polygraph testing is a common part of sex offender treatment, and that test results are reasonably relied upon by experts in the field of sex offender treatment. Strain testified that the five failed polygraphs led him to feel that Appellant was not being honest with him and caused him to be concerned about the community's safety. Finally, Strain testified that he had no other concerns about Appellant's treatment and that the five failed polygraphs were the only basis for Appellant's discharge from treatment. The trial court found true the allegation that Appellant was unsuccessfully discharged from sex offender treatment and found Appellant guilty of injury to a child. He was sentenced to seven years' confinement.

[vy65]

In this case, the therapist kicked the guy out of therapy because he didn't feel like he was making satisfactory progress. That's an opinion. He can use any basis he wants to form his opinions. He could just as easily said, "I did not feel that the subject was being sincere and honest in therapy sessions." He didn't need the damned polygraph. Is it unfair that one person can have that kind of power over the situation? What's really unfair is when a 40 year-old man has that kind of power over a child. This guy had already been convicted. You people are arguing over whether he should be in jail for it. Probation isn't a ing right.

That's incorrect. Expert testimony still has to meet the requirements for admissibility - whether that be Daubert or Robinson

One more thing. A lot of things that happen in these cases never make it into the court proceedings. They get suppressed - or waived, as in the unpaid fines. The therapist likely believed that this guy was gaming his therapy, and still presented a danger to children, and he used the 5 failed polygraphs as part of the basis for his belief. And it's just as likely that the defense seized on that one thing to try and find a way to keep the guy on the streets. Do people go looking for reasons to revoke probation, in certain cases. You bet your ass they do. And they should. In the case of a child predator, it shouldn't take much to give these guys the privelege of the prison sentence they earned.

Is that just conjecture? Do you have any bases for these claims?

[GSH]

Don't know what you mean by "discount." To the extent that an expert's opinion relies on a methodology that fails Daubert or Robinson, the conclusions based on that (flawed) methodology as well as the methodology itself are inadmissible at trial:

We are persuaded by the reasoning in Daubert and Kelly. Therefore, we hold that in addition to showing that an expert witness is qualified, Rule 702 also requires the proponent to show that the expert's testimony is relevant to the issues in the case and is based upon a reliable foundation. The trial court is responsible for making the preliminary determination of whether the proffered testimony meets the standards set forth today. See TEX.R.CIV.EVID. 104(a) (stating that the trial court is to decide preliminary questions concerning the admissibility of evidence).

Rule 702 contains three requirements for the admission of expert testimony: (1) the witness must be qualified; (2) the proposed testimony must be "scientific ... knowledge"; and (3) the testimony must "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." TEX.R.CIV.EVID. 702. In order to cons ute scientific knowledge which will assist the trier of fact, the proposed testimony must be relevant and reliable.

Your professor did explain who the gatekeeper is with Daubert?

If the state had included failing a polygraph as reason for revocation, there might have been a problem. They didn't.

The judge relied on expert opinion. The expert indicated that Leonard wasn't being honest with him. Yes, he used a polygraph. But he could just as easily have based it on body language. Would you deem that any more scientific? Expert witnesses do it all the time.

Whether you like it or not, all that was required was the mental health professional's expert opinion that Leonard was not satisfactorily participating in his treatment, or that he was showing deception in his answers. If he had testified that he believed Leonard had molested other children, based on a polygraph, that would have been inadmissable. But psychiatrists use all sorts of arcane methods to assess patient behavior. Their expert opinion as to the mental state of a defendant is just that - opinion. And that is admissable.

And that's what the Court found.

Is that just conjecture? Do you have any bases for these claims?

The only specific fact I have is that the failure to pay fines, which was enough to revoke, in and of itself, wasn't part of the proceedings. (So, yes, I have a basis for the claim.) I'm sure that was because they felt that the failure to successfully complete treatment was enough. And it was.

[Blake]

Why are people like you so happy to remain ignorant? It literally took me 30 seconds to find the facts in this case. I notice you didn't even attempt to dispute the facts that: probation isn't a right, and that the judge was perfectly within his bounds to revoke it in this case. But I am sort of surprised that you didn't try and argue that the judge is part of the one percent, or something equally irrelevant.

lol ignorant to the fact that the State waived the allegation of failing to pay the fines.

You're all over the place, and obviously didn't read all the facts in this case.

Thanks for the link to the case though. I'm on my phone while doing 3 things at once, so your gesture was appreciated.

[vy65]

Your professor did explain who the gatekeeper is with Daubert?

The judge. Don't see why who the gatekeeper is has any relevance though.

If the state had included failing a polygraph as reason for revocation, there might have been a problem. They didn't.

Except that is exactly what happened. It formed the sole basis for the experts opinion - an opinion which was the trial court's sole basis for revoking probation. The guy was "tried by polygraph." This is the transcript the Court of Appeals quoted:

Q. Mr. Strain, why was Mr. Leonard discharged from treatment?

A. Because he failed five polygraphs.

Q. And so you're saying that was your reason for unsuccessfully discharging him from treatment?

A. That's correct.

. . . .

Q. Mr. Strain, to make sure on this, the — the — as you related to me yesterday, the sole basis for your making the discharge was because of this — because of the reasons that you previously stated to the prosecutor regarding polygraphs?

A. That's correct.

. . . .

Q. Okay. With — and your — your basis for your testimony of saying that you were concerned that he was not being completely honest with him rests entirely on the failure of the polygraphs; is that correct?

A. Yes, it does.

Your understanding of the facts is wholly inconsistent with the record.

The judge relied on expert opinion. The expert indicated that Leonard wasn't being honest with him. Yes, he used a polygraph. But he could just as easily have based it on body language. Would you deem that any more scientific? Expert witnesses do it all the time.

Whether you like it or not, all that was required was the mental health professional's expert opinion that Leonard was not satisfactorily participating in his treatment, or that he was showing deception in his answers. If he had testified that he believed Leonard had molested other children, based on a polygraph, that would have been inadmissable. But psychiatrists use all sorts of arcane methods to assess patient behavior. Their expert opinion as to the mental state of a defendant is just that - opinion. And that is admissable.

And that's what the Court found.

That's wrong - the Robinson factors require an expert's methodology to be reliable and his testimony be relevant. I'd hardly call personal impressions of someone reliable scientific evidence. Wouldn't you?

And it would be the judge's gate-keeping function to exclude said testimony if the expert's scientific opinion was based solely on how the defendant "seemed to him."

[vy65]

The only specific fact I have is that the failure to pay fines, which was enough to revoke, in and of itself, wasn't part of the proceedings. (So, yes, I have a basis for the claim.) I'm sure that was because they felt that the failure to successfully complete treatment was enough. And it was.

One more thing. A lot of things that happen in these cases never make it into the court proceedings. They get suppressed - or waived, as in the unpaid fines. The therapist likely believed that this guy was gaming his therapy, and still presented a danger to children, and he used the 5 failed polygraphs as part of the basis for his belief. And it's just as likely that the defense seized on that one thing to try and find a way to keep the guy on the streets. Do people go looking for reasons to revoke probation, in certain cases. You bet your ass they do. And they should. In the case of a child predator, it shouldn't take much to give these guys the privelege of the prison sentence they earned.

Wasn't asking about fines - I was asking about the underlined portions of your quote. Your conjecture is inconsistent with the therapist's testimony, so I'll ask the same question: where are you getting that from?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, if the polygraph was explicitly part of the plea agreement, the decision is slightly easier to understand. However, folks are getting really emotionally charged over the crime he was charged with. I understand that as well but if you can't see the slippery slope here, I can't help you. What's to stop it from being used for any charge?

[GSH]

The judge. Don't see why who the gatekeeper is has any relevance though.

Of course you don't. Your failure to understand is prevalent in all your comments.

The guy was "tried by polygraph."
You do understand that he wasn't being tried, don't you? That this wasn't a trial? Of course you don't.

That's wrong - the Robinson factors require an expert's methodology to be reliable and his testimony be relevant. I'd hardly call personal impressions of someone reliable scientific evidence. Wouldn't you?

You're also either hopeless naive, or stupid. See the sentences below, in huge text. That was straight from the Court of Criminal Appeals.

You finally connected the dots for me. You're a student, aren't you? You've got some facts, but not much knowledge.


This is straight from the Court of Criminal Appeals:

A revocation hearing is an administrative proceeding and is neither a criminal nor a civil trial. See Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.12, section 21(b), specifies that, when a condition of community supervision is violated, the judge shall conduct a hearing without a jury to determine whether to continue, extend, modify, or revoke community supervision. Even though revocation of community supervision may result in the defendant's loss of liberty, a revocation hearing does not involve findings of guilt; rather it is a forum in which the judge decides whether the defendant has broken the contract he made with the court after a determination of guilt has already been made. While the rules of evidence and procedure generally apply to revocation hearings, evidence not normally admissible at a trial can be presented to the judge at a revocation hearing. And, because the judge is not determining guilt, the standard of proof is lower than in a criminal trial; the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the conditions of community supervision were violated.

And this:

Even generally inadmissible facts or data may be used by an expert in forming an opinion, as long as the facts or data are of a type reasonably relied upon by other experts in the field.4 As discussed above, polygraph exams are reasonably relied upon by experts in sex offender psychotherapy. As such, Rule 703 permits Strain to rely on polygraph results in forming his expert opinion that Appellant should be discharged from the sex offender treatment program.

While Rule 703 allows experts to rely on inadmissible evidence in forming an opinion, Rule 705 dictates whether the basis for the opinion is disclosed to the court. Under Rule 705(a): "The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give the expert's reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event disclose on direct examination, or be required to disclose on cross-examination, the underlying facts or data." Thus, Rule 705(a) allows Strain to disclose that the failed polygraphs were the basis for his opinion. Put simply, Rule 703 allows Strain to say, "I discharged the defendant because I felt that he was being dishonest," and under Rule 705(a), he may add, "I felt he was being dishonest because he failed the mandated polygraphs exams."


You're just wrong. On almost everything you say - at least as it applies to this case. But, hey, thanks for playing.

[GSH]

Well, if the polygraph was explicitly part of the plea agreement, the decision is slightly easier to understand. However, folks are getting really emotionally charged over the crime he was charged with. I understand that as well but if you can't see the slippery slope here, I can't help you. What's to stop it from being used for any charge?

You can be a reasonable guy, Chump. So I'll explain it. There is no slippery slope, and it can't be used for just any charge for one big reason. This wasn't a trial. The judge wasn't trying to determine guilt - that had already been established at a trial. Nobody, anywhere, is going for the idea of a polygraph being used in a trial, to determine guilt. Okay - maybe a few idiots. But there is absolutely zero chance of them ever being used that way. And this case is not a step in that direction.

[Blake]

You can be a reasonable guy, Chump. So I'll explain it. There is no slippery slope, and it can't be used for just any charge for one big reason. This wasn't a trial. The judge wasn't trying to determine guilt - that had already been established at a trial. Nobody, anywhere, is going for the idea of a polygraph being used in a trial, to determine guilt. Okay - maybe a few idiots. But there is absolutely zero chance of them ever being used that way. And this case is not a step in that direction.

They were trying to determine if he was guilty of a probation violation in a court of law.

The proceedings are obviously different in this hearing than in a criminal trial, but the slippery slope is rather obvious.

[ChumpDumper]

You can be a reasonable guy, Chump. So I'll explain it. There is no slippery slope, and it can't be used for just any charge for one big reason. This wasn't a trial. The judge wasn't trying to determine guilt - that had already been established at a trial. Nobody, anywhere, is going for the idea of a polygraph being used in a trial, to determine guilt. Okay - maybe a few idiots. But there is absolutely zero chance of them ever being used that way. And this case is not a step in that direction.

Not all the rules of evidence apply to trials?

Serious question. I don't understand.

[vy65]

Not all the rules of evidence apply to trials?

Serious question. I don't understand.

It's technically not a trial - but an administrative hearing, so some rules of evidence and procedure may not apply.

[vy65]

This is straight from the Court of Criminal Appeals:

A revocation hearing is an administrative proceeding and is neither a criminal nor a civil trial. See Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.12, section 21(b), specifies that, when a condition of community supervision is violated, the judge shall conduct a hearing without a jury to determine whether to continue, extend, modify, or revoke community supervision. Even though revocation of community supervision may result in the defendant's loss of liberty, a revocation hearing does not involve findings of guilt; rather it is a forum in which the judge decides whether the defendant has broken the contract he made with the court after a determination of guilt has already been made. While the rules of evidence and procedure generally apply to revocation hearings, evidence not normally admissible at a trial can be presented to the judge at a revocation hearing. And, because the judge is not determining guilt, the standard of proof is lower than in a criminal trial; the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the conditions of community supervision were violated.

This is wholly irrelevant. Can you point to any case-law indicating that the rules of evidence regarding experts don't apply to a revocation hearing? That's what this has been all about: whether the rules of evidence would allow the fact that Leonard failed multiple polygraphs into the hearing.

This is also irrelevant because the State agreed that a straight-up polygraph test would be inadmissible at the probation hearing: The State acknowledges that polygraphs are generally inadmissible but argues that Leonard's test results were admissible under TEX. R. EVID. 703 because Strain was an expert and because he testified that experts in his field reasonably rely upon polygraph exams when treating sex offenders.

I'd ask you to explain why the administrative nature of probation hearings or the fact that some rules of evidence might not apply, but I have a feeling you'll just make some weak ass insult to cover your ignorance.

And this:

Even generally inadmissible facts or data may be used by an expert in forming an opinion, as long as the facts or data are of a type reasonably relied upon by other experts in the field.4 As discussed above, polygraph exams are reasonably relied upon by experts in sex offender psychotherapy. As such, Rule 703 permits Strain to rely on polygraph results in forming his expert opinion that Appellant should be discharged from the sex offender treatment program.

While Rule 703 allows experts to rely on inadmissible evidence in forming an opinion, Rule 705 dictates whether the basis for the opinion is disclosed to the court. Under Rule 705(a): "The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give the expert's reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event disclose on direct examination, or be required to disclose on cross-examination, the underlying facts or data." Thus, Rule 705(a) allows Strain to disclose that the failed polygraphs were the basis for his opinion. Put simply, Rule 703 allows Strain to say, "I discharged the defendant because I felt that he was being dishonest," and under Rule 705(a), he may add, "I felt he was being dishonest because he failed the mandated polygraphs exams."

Again, wholly irrelevant. For one, I have no idea where you're getting this because you didn't give a link. For two, it's not in the TCCA or Court of Appeal's decisions. For three, no one has ever said anything about the fact that an expert can rely on evidence that would otherwise not be admissible at trial in coming to their conclusions.

Remember when you thought there were reasons for the revocation other than the failed polygraph test? And I had to quote the record -- where the expert said his sole basis for his conclusions were the 5 polygraphs.

The whole dispute here is about whether an expert can bootstrap in otherwise inadmissible evidence into trial, a hearing, whatever, by "relying" (in fact, solely relying) on said inadmissible evidence. I'm still waiting to hear a reason why this boot-strapping would be good. So far, you've just complained that child molesters are evil.

[GSH]

Not all the rules of evidence apply to trials?

Serious question. I don't understand.

It was an administrative hearing. Not a trial at all. Not used to determine guilt. (In this case, the guy admitted to "harming a child", so that he didn't have to face trial for raping a child.") So, no, not all the rules of evidence apply. It's far from a kangaroo court, but it's not as stringent as a trial.

Probation is a contract between the state and the criminal. The administrative hearing is to determine if the criminal has violated that contract. It's not nearly as hard to revoke probation, as to convict in the first place. And it is supposed to be that way.

[vy65]

The judge. Don't see why who the gatekeeper is has any relevance though.

Of course you don't. Your failure to understand is prevalent in all your comments.

So it's not relevant. Got it.

The guy was "tried by polygraph."
You do understand that he wasn't being tried, don't you? That this wasn't a trial? Of course you don't.

You do understand that the difference between a hearing vs. a trial are irrelevant when you haven't given a reason why the lower evidentiary standards at a probation hearing should make polygraph results admissible.

Serious question: did you bother reading any of the opinions in this case?

That's wrong - the Robinson factors require an expert's methodology to be reliable and his testimony be relevant. I'd hardly call personal impressions of someone reliable scientific evidence. Wouldn't you?

You're also either hopeless naive, or stupid. See the sentences below, in huge text. That was straight from the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Your reference to the sentences below and the fact that you couldn't answer my question leads me to believe you don't know how the rules of evidence work.

[CosmicCowboy]

vy65 REALLY cares about polygraphs...

[vy65]

vy65 REALLY cares about polygraphs...

Dude, your recipe for grits sounds gross . . .

[GSH]

This is wholly irrelevant. Can you point to any case-law indicating that the rules of evidence regarding experts don't apply to a revocation hearing? That's what this has been all about: whether the rules of evidence would allow the fact that Leonard failed multiple polygraphs into the hearing.

I'd ask you to explain why the administrative nature of probation hearings or the fact that some rules of evidence might not apply, but I have a feeling you'll just make some weak ass insult to cover your ignorance.



Again, wholly irrelevant. For one, I have no idea where you're getting this because you didn't give a link. For two, it's not in the TCCA or Court of Appeal's decisions. For three, no one has ever said anything about the fact that an expert can rely on evidence that would otherwise not be admissible at trial in coming to their conclusions.

You didn't say it, because you didn't know it until I told you. If you can't find your own link, try this one. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...URR&SizeDisp=7
And, yes, it's a fact. And you just proved my point. And the state's.

Remember when you thought there were reasons for the revocation other than the failed polygraph test? And I had to quote the record -- where the expert said his sole basis for his conclusions were the 5 polygraphs.

Stop with the straw man . I never said that. I said that there are often things involved with a case that never make it to the court proceedings. In these kinds of cases, the psychiatrist/psychologist often has reason to believe that the guy is still staking children that either won't hold up in court, or that a judge suppresses. Read State v Nesbitt - another revocation hearing, where a polygraph was also brought up. I may send you a private message explaining the REAL reason they wanted the guy locked up. That reason never showed up in the court proceedings. Don't be a naive child.

The whole dispute here is about whether an expert can bootstrap in otherwise inadmissible evidence into trial, a hearing, whatever, by "relying" (in fact, solely relying) on said inadmissible evidence. I'm still waiting to hear a reason why this boot-strapping would be good. So far, you've just complained that child molesters are evil.

The whole issue here is whether an expert witness in an administrative hearing must be disqualified because he/she used a polygraph. You sound like you've watched too much Law And Order. (BTW - you already admitted above that an expert in an administrative hearing can rely on evidence that would otherwise be inadmissable. What do you think that means?

You were wrong before. You're wrong now. The court says so, too.

For the record, I'm not crazy about expert witnesses in general. Almost every one of them are pros utes, willing to say whatever they get paid to say. I don't know the expert in this case, and I automatically don't trust him. But that isn't really the point. The fact that he used a polygraph to form his expert opinion is no less legitimate than the other methods that the pros utes use. If this guy's opinion had been what convicted Leonard to begin with, I'd be right with you. But in a revocation hearing? 'em. Once you plead guilty to the crime, you don't have any right to stay out of jail. And that, more than anything, is the real issue. People act like these social contracts have more weight than the underlying criminal law.

Your reference to the sentences below and the fact that you couldn't answer my question leads me to believe you don't know how the rules of evidence work.

off, Skippy. Jack McCoy isn't a real person.

[Drachen]

Dude, your recipe for grits sounds gross . . .

while I appreciate what you are bringing to the thread, I respectfully disagree. If there is one thing CC usually brings, it is good recipies.

[Yonivore]

off, Skippy. Jack McCoy isn't a real person.

[vy65]

Again, wholly irrelevant. For one, I have no idea where you're getting this because you didn't give a link. For two, it's not in the TCCA or Court of Appeal's decisions. For three, no one has ever said anything about the fact that an expert can rely on evidence that would otherwise not be admissible at trial in coming to their conclusions.

You didn't say it, because you didn't know it until I told you. If you can't find your own link, try this one. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...URR&SizeDisp=7
And, yes, it's a fact. And you just proved my point. And the state's.

So it's not from any of the opinions in this case. And you're still not getting the key problem here.

Remember when you thought there were reasons for the revocation other than the failed polygraph test? And I had to quote the record -- where the expert said his sole basis for his conclusions were the 5 polygraphs.

Stop with the straw man . I never said that. I said that there are often things involved with a case that never make it to the court proceedings. In these kinds of cases, the psychiatrist/psychologist often has reason to believe that the guy is still staking children that either won't hold up in court, or that a judge suppresses. Read State v Nesbitt - another revocation hearing, where a polygraph was also brought up. I may send you a private message explaining the REAL reason they wanted the guy locked up. That reason never showed up in the court proceedings. Don't be a naive child.

Except that in this case, the sole and only basis for the expert's opinion was a polygraph test.

Lol phantom justifications. Hopefully the central committee doesn't find out you're in the know, comrade.

The whole dispute here is about whether an expert can bootstrap in otherwise inadmissible evidence into trial, a hearing, whatever, by "relying" (in fact, solely relying) on said inadmissible evidence. I'm still waiting to hear a reason why this boot-strapping would be good. So far, you've just complained that child molesters are evil.

The whole issue here is whether an expert witness in an administrative hearing must be disqualified because he/she used a polygraph. You sound like you've watched too much Law And Order. (BTW - you already admitted above that an expert in an administrative hearing can rely on evidence that would otherwise be inadmissable. What do you think that means?

That means that an expert may use polygraph results, in connection with other forms of evidence, in arriving at his conclusions. It does not mean that he may solely rely on polygraphs in an attempt to bootstrap inadmissible evidence into a proceeding. The state's attorney admitted as much when they said that polygraph evidence - standing alone - would be inadmissible to the hearing. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Lol pros utes.

[CosmicCowboy]

Did you like..uhhh...fail a polygraph at a bassmasters tournament? You really have a hard on for them...

[vy65]

Congratulations.

I thoroughly enjoy political discourse but that is no longer what this place is about. It's all about your snarky little gang trying to irritate and snipe like a gang of juvenile delinquents and then slapping yourselves on the back about how witty you are all the while running and hiding from real discourse behind whining claims of "straw men" and stupid demands for links to links to links that get posted.

I recognize that every political forum has its idiots or just bum ing crazy people like Boutons, but when the seemingly sane people get caught up in this crap as well it's really depressing and this place has turned into a total waste of time.

Chump? You win Charlie Sheen...You get the award for pompously thinking you are really putting it to people while just coming off as a snarky little that wants to aggravate people...congratulations...you succeeded...You used to be better than that and occasionally brought substantive takes...what happened?

The rest of you? Winehole?...you seem like a smart guy but again the desire to impress your gang with your witty snitty insults drowns out the quality you used to bring to the forum...

Clambake? Whatever happened to just talking politics and bouncing differing opinions off each other?...are you just trying to impress Chump and the rest of the little gang?

I could go on...there are a lot of other quality posters that have jumped on the snark bandwagon plus the hanger on third stringers that it's just no fun in here anymore. There are a lot of you guys I'm sure I would like in person and I actually think you guys would like me too, but I'm done.

I'm sure there will be high fives all around and victory declarations and snarky comments about me slinking off with my butthurt so knock yourselves out...that's what this place has become...and quite honestly I don't need the aggravation and refuse to waste any more time in here...

Maybe we can even get Kori to change the name of the forum to something more appropriate like the Charlie Sheen Winners Club...enjoy the forum you have ruined...

[GSH]

Lol pros utes.

Look - I'm not going to argue the law with you anymore. Frankly, you're starting to bore me, and I hate that. I think you're probably a student, and you don't know how much you don't know. You're wrong, and the court just said so. Take it up with them when you graduate.

One thing I will mention, for the rest of the people reading this. Texas didn't just do something Draconian with their laws. The same thing is common practice around the country. , Oregon is a liberal paradise, and even there they revoke probation for sex offenders who fail polygraphs. (That's right, Skippy, Oregon.) Don't try to pretend that Texas is some judicial backwater, because of this ruling.