Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

State v. Alexander

364 P.3d 458 (2015)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,600+ case briefs...

State v. Alexander

Alaska Court of Appeals

364 P.3d 458 (2015)

Facts

Thomas Alexander (defendant) and James Griffith were charged in separate cases of sexually abusing a minor. Their attorneys both hired Dr. David Raskin to administer polygraphs. Raskin was prepared to testify to a 90-percent likelihood that both had truthfully denied the abuse. The two judges held a consolidated hearing to determine the polygraphs’ admissibility. The state’s expert testified that polygraph results were not as reliable as Raskin claimed. The experts agreed that polygraphs could reliably show some measure of physiological response to lying, but disagreed over the effects of a friendly examiner, how the examiner scored the responses, and the success of techniques to cheat” a polygraph. The experts did agree that a control-question polygraph was more likely to yield false positives than negatives. The judges found it yielded acceptably reliable results and noted generally accepted scientific standards. However, Raskin testified that techniques to reduce physiological responses reduced accuracy by as much as 50 percent, and the judges found evasion techniques could be learned over the internet in a half-hour. The judges concluded those problems went to weight and not reliability, and that courts could still exclude polygraphs if the potential for prejudice outweighed probative value. Last, the judges found the lack of general acceptance in the scientific community not fatal under Daubert. Therefore, the judges agreed to admit the polygraphs under two conditions: the accused had to (1) submit to a second polygraph administered by a state-chosen examiner, and (2) testify at trial subject to cross-examination. Meanwhile, Griffith took (and evidently failed) a state-administered polygraph and pleaded guilty, leaving Alexander the only defendant in the case. Alexander and the prosecution appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Mannheimer, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 519,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership