Most Americans want independent probe of CIA leak: poll

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Most Americans want an independent investigator to probe charges that the White House leaked the name of a covert CIA agent.

According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, sixty-nine percent of 505 adults surveyed Tuesday believed an independent probe was needed, compared with only 29 percent who believed Attorney General John Ashcroft would get to the bottom of the affair.

Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, was named as a Central Intelligence Agency operative in a July 14 column by conservative writer Robert Novak.

The US Department of Justice notified the White House late Monday that it was launching a full investigation into who leaked her name.

more

Don

<snip>As of this date, 18 states admit by stipulation of the parties, in at least some circumstances, evidence of the results of polygraph testing. Only New Mexico generally permits the introduction of polygraph evidence without a stipulation (though its admissibility is tightly controlled by evidentiary rule). Of the remaining 31 states, the courts have either rejected admission of polygraphs, including by stipulation, or have not addressed the issue. In some jurisdictions, the status of admissibility of polygraph evidence is not clear. For example, in Illinois, the state appellate courts have held that stipulated polygraph evidence is inadmissible. Recently, however, the Illinois court of appeals upheld the admissibility of stipulated polygraphs in a civil case. It is unclear whether Illinois continues to be an inadmissibility state or is now a state where polygraph evidence is admissible by stipulation. In South Carolina, a recent decision of their highest appellate court observed that, while polygraph evidence is generally inadmissible, its admissibility is at the discretion of the trial court.

In the federal circuit, the admissibility of polygraph evidence is largely controlled by trial judge discretion under F.R.E. 702 and the decision in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (U.S.Cal. 1993), though some circuits continue to adhere to a per se exclusion of polygraph evidence. Some courts, both federal and state, cite U.S. v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 363, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 .Ed.2d 413 (1998), for support of judicially imposed per se ban of polygraph evidence. A close reading of Scheffer, however, does not support such reading.<2> Additionally, the federal courts are in conflict as to whether polygraph evidence should be admissible in capital sentencing proceedings. Compare Rupe v. Wood, 93 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1996) and Goins v. Angelone, 226 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2000).

more

Don