Comment by Matthew A. Woolf
As society advances socially and technologically, the role of scientific evidence in the courtroom has increased. Scientific evidence is now a prevalent and reliable source of expert testimony. This Comment examines polygraph testing, a controversial source of scientific evidence, and the underlying question of the admissibility of new technical and scientific evidence in the courtrooms of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the State of Louisiana. From Frye, to Daubert, to Scheffer, the determination of the admissibility of scientific evidence has changed both substantively and procedurally. This Comment examines these changes and their effect on the Fifth Circuit and the state courts of Louisiana, concluding that the two jurisdictions have adopted different approaches to the admissibility of polygraph evidence.
About the Author
Matthew A. Woolf. J.D. candidate 2000, Tulane University School of Law; B.A. 1997, Duke University.
Citation
74 Tul. L. Rev. 1097 (2000)