## Facts

- Thomas Alexander and James Griffith were charged in separate Alaska cases with sexually abusing a minor.
- In both cases, defense counsel hired Dr. David C. Raskin to administer control-question polygraph examinations.
- Raskin was prepared to testify that there was about a 90% likelihood that each defendant was truthful when denying the abuse.
- Two superior court judges held a consolidated evidentiary hearing to decide whether the polygraph evidence was admissible.
- The State presented its own witness, who disputed Raskin’s reliability claims for polygraph testing.
- The witnesses agreed that polygraph instruments can record physiological responses associated with deception, but they disputed how reliably those responses can be interpreted as truthfulness or lying.
- The witnesses disputed the effect of having a “friendly” examiner, the subjectivity of scoring and interpretation, and the effectiveness of countermeasures designed to reduce physiological responses.
- The witnesses agreed that control-question polygraphs are more likely to produce false positives (calling truthful people deceptive) than false negatives.
- The judges found the polygraph results sufficiently reliable under Daubert and noted the existence of scientific standards used in the field.
- Raskin also testified that certain countermeasures could reduce accuracy by as much as 50%, and the judges found that evasion techniques could be learned from the internet in about a half-hour.
- The judges concluded that these problems generally affected the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility, while recognizing that trial courts could still exclude polygraph evidence if unfair prejudice outweighed probative value.
- The judges ruled the polygraph evidence would be admissible only if (1) the defendant submitted to a second polygraph administered by a qualified examiner chosen by the State, and (2) the defendant testified at trial and submitted to cross-examination.
- After the ruling, Griffith took a State-administered polygraph, apparently failed it, and pleaded guilty; Alexander remained the only defendant pursuing admission of favorable polygraph evidence.
- The State petitioned for review of the admissibility ruling, and Alexander cross-petitioned to challenge the two admission conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether polygraph evidence remains categorically inadmissible under Alaska law, or may be admitted if it satisfies Alaska Evidence Rule 702 and Daubert (as adopted in State v. Coon), despite the earlier broad exclusion announced in Pulakis v. State.
2. If polygraph evidence may be admitted in some cases, whether the trial court could condition admission on the defendant taking a second polygraph administered by a State-selected qualified examiner.
3. If polygraph evidence may be admitted in some cases, whether the trial court could condition admission on the defendant testifying at trial and being subject to cross-examination.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s conclusion that polygraph evidence is not automatically barred and may be admissible if it meets Rule 702 and Daubert.
- The Court of Appeals upheld the superior court’s conditions requiring (1) a second polygraph by a State-chosen qualified examiner and (2) the defendant’s trial testimony subject to cross-examination.
- The Court of Appeals left the superior court free to revisit admissibility and the conditions in light of later factual developments.

## Legal Principles

- Alaska Evidence Rule 702 and Daubert (as adopted in State v. Coon) require a case-by-case assessment of scientific evidence; earlier blanket rules from the pre-Daubert era do not control if they conflict with Rule 702’s reliability inquiry.
- General acceptance in the relevant scientific community is a factor in the Daubert analysis, but lack of general acceptance does not automatically require exclusion.
- Disputes about examiner bias, scoring differences, error rates, and countermeasures may be explored through competing witnesses and cross-examination; depending on the showing in a given case, such concerns may affect weight rather than requiring automatic exclusion.
- Even when scientific evidence satisfies Rule 702, the trial court may exclude it under Evidence Rule 403 if the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury substantially outweighs the evidence’s probative value.
- A trial court may impose reasonable conditions on admitting controversial scientific evidence to reduce one-sided presentation and allow meaningful testing of reliability, including permitting a second examination by a qualified examiner selected by the opposing party.
- When a defendant seeks to introduce favorable polygraph results tied to the defendant’s own denials, a trial court may condition admission on the defendant testifying so the State can challenge credibility through cross-examination.

## Conclusion

State v. Alexander holds that, in Alaska, polygraph evidence is not subject to a per se ban and instead may be admitted when it satisfies Rule 702 and Daubert and survives Rule 403 balancing; the Court of Appeals approved the superior court’s conditional admission order requiring a State-administered polygraph and the defendant’s testimony, while allowing the trial court to reconsider the ruling as the case develops.


State v. Alexander, 364 P.3d 458 (2015)