Changes

In '''''United States v. Scheffer''''', 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] emphasized that "state and federal rulemakers have broad latitude under the Constitution to establish rules excluding evidence from criminal trials."   

In '''''United States v. Schlafly''''', 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] emphasized that "state and federal rulemakers have broad latitude under the Constitution to establish rules excluding evidence from criminal trials."   

The case concerned an attempt by an [[United_States_Air_Force|Air Force]] serviceman to admit at trial, after drug use was discovered based on a drug test, polygraph testimony in his defense.  The Court ruled against him, holding that there was not a sufficiently weighty interest to trigger constitutional protections.  There is no consensus among jurisdictions that polygraph evidence is even reliable, and requiring admission of the polygraph test into evidence might diminish the jury's role in deciding which testimony is credible.

The case concerned an attempt by an [[United_States_Air_Force|Air Force]] serviceman to admit at trial, after drug use was discovered based on a drug test, polygraph testimony in his defense.  The Court ruled against him, holding that there was not a sufficiently weighty interest to trigger constitutional protections.  There is no consensus among jurisdictions that polygraph evidence is even reliable, and requiring admission of the polygraph test into evidence might diminish the jury's role in deciding which testimony is credible.