LOS ANGELES, Sept. 5, 2007 -- A polygraph test was admitted into evidence
at a
criminal trial in Ohio last week, the first time this has happened in more
than thirty years. As a result,
an innocent man regained his freedom and
his reputation. The main witness for the defense was Dr. Louis Rovner of
Los Angeles, California, a renowned scientist and polygraph expert.
The case of Ohio vs. Sahil
Sharma had been hotly contested for more
than a year. Mr. Sharma was charged with Sexual Battery, and found himself
in the proverbial he said-she said situation. Two 20-somethings met at a
wedding rehearsal dinner, went out drinking,
and ended up in the same hotel
room. The next morning, the young lady claimed that she had too much to
drink, fell
asleep, and was taken advantage of by Mr. Sharma. Mr. Sharma
said that she was wide awake and that having sex was actually
her idea.
Since both parties admitted that sex had occurred, and since there was no
physical evidence of force,
a court had to decide whether the "victim" was
telling the truth, or whether Mr. Sharma was being unjustly
accused of a
serious crime.
Mr. Sharma's defense attorney, Kirk Migdal, sought out
the services of
Dr. Rovner, who is widely acknowledged as one of the best polygraph
examiners in the country. After
a polygraph test that lasted more than 2
1/2 hours, Rovner concluded that Mr. Sharma was telling the truth when he
said that the woman was wide awake and that the sexual encounter was
consensual.
Judge
Judy Hunter held a special pre-trial hearing in order to
determine whether polygraph testing, as it is now practiced,
is supported
by scientific research and the scientific community. Upon learning that
forty years of high quality
scientific research establishes polygraph as
one of the most accurate forms of scientific evidence, the judge overruled
the prosecution's objections and, contrary to Ohio state law, decided to
admit the polygraph test at trial. An
Ohio appellate court refused to
overturn Judge Hunter's ruling.
Rovner returned to
Ohio for the trial and testified in open court,
examined first by the defense, and cross-examined aggressively by the
prosecutor. During the reading of the verdict, Dr. Rovner's testimony was
cited as one of the primary pieces of
evidence that led to the finding of
Not Guilty.