U.S. v. Martin, 75 M.J. 321

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Credibility

1. if a witness does not expressly state that he believes a person is truthful, a court examines the testimony to determine if it is the functional equivalent of human lie detector testimony; testimony is the functional equivalent of human lie detector testimony when it invades the unique province of the court members to determine the credibility of witnesses, and the substance of the testimony leads the members to infer that the witness believes the victim is truthful or deceitful with respect to an issue at trial
2. human lie detector evidence is inadmissible at a court-martial because it is a fundamental premise of our criminal trial system that the panel is the lie detector and determines the weight and credibility of witness testimony

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Opinion Testimony

1. human lie detector evidence is elicited when a witness provides an opinion as to whether a person was truthful in making a specific statement regarding a fact at issue in the case; there is no litmus test for determining whether a witness has offered human lie detector evidence
2. if a witness does not expressly state that he believes a person is truthful, a court examines the testimony to determine if it is the functional equivalent of human lie detector testimony; testimony is the functional equivalent of human lie detector testimony when it invades the unique province of the court members to determine the credibility of witnesses, and the substance of the testimony leads the members to infer that the witness believes the victim is truthful or deceitful with respect to an issue at trial
3. human lie detector evidence is inadmissible at a court-martial because it is a fundamental premise of our criminal trial system that the panel is the lie detector and determines the weight and credibility of witness testimony
4. in this case, both trial defense counsel and trial counsel elicited testimony from the victim’s husband about whether he believed his wife’s account of an alleged sexual encounter with appellant; however, the husband’s testimony on direct examination by the trial counsel did not rise to the level of actual human like detector testimony, nor did it constitute the functional equivalent of human lie detector testimony; although trial counsel did elicit human lie detector testimony on redirect examination, it was the trial defense counsel who invited the error when, in the course of conducting cross-examination, he was the first party to elicit human lie detector testimony from the witness on the same evidentiary point; and where trial defense counsel first elicits human lie detector evidence on cross-examination, the invited error doctrine precludes appellant from complaining about the government’s elicitation of this type of evidence on redirect

Trial Stages: Appeals: Invited Error / Open Door

1. although human lie detector evidence is inadmissible, an appellate court will not find reversible error from the introduction of human lie detector evidence at trial when the accused invites its admission
2. the invited error doctrine prevents a party from creating error and then taking advantage of a situation of his own making on appeal; as a result, invited error does not provide a basis for relief
3. in this case, both trial defense counsel and trial counsel elicited testimony from the victim’s husband about whether he believed his wife’s account of an alleged sexual encounter with appellant; however, the husband’s testimony on direct examination by the trial counsel did not rise to the level of actual human like detector testimony, nor did it constitute the functional equivalent of human lie detector testimony; although trial counsel did elicit human lie detector testimony on redirect examination, it was the trial defense counsel who invited the error when, in the course of conducting cross-examination, he was the first party to elicit human lie detector testimony from the witness on the same evidentiary point; and where trial defense counsel first elicits human lie detector evidence on cross-examination, the invited error doctrine precludes appellant from complaining about the government’s elicitation of this type of evidence on redirect

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. the question of whether trial defense counsel invited an error at trial is a question of law, which an appellate court reviews de novo