|
In the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) the United States Supreme Court adopted a new federal standard for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence. 509 U.S. at 589 n.6. The decision indicated the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 702, necessitated the new approach. That rule states:If Scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Although Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is identical to Rule 702 of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence, our state Supreme Court recently declined to adopt the Daubert standard. See Council, 335 S.C. at 20, 515 S.E.2d at 518. The court concluded “the proper analysis for determining admissibility of scientific evidence is now under the SCRE.” The court explained, “[w]hen admitting scientific evidence under Rule 702, SCRE, the trial judge must find the evidence will assist the trier of fact, the expert witness is qualified, and the underlying science is reliable.” In determining reliability, the trial court should consider several factors, including:
(1) the publications and peer review of the technique;
(2) prior application of the method to the type of evidence involved in the case;
(3) the quality control procedures used to ensure reliability; and
(4) the consistency of the method with recognized scientific laws and procedures.
With the above criteria now established for determining reliability, the South Carolina Association of Polygraph Examiners has established a Peer Review Panel consisting of polygraph examiners selected for their experience and expertise in the field of Polygraphy. This panel will be available to offer a peer review, or a quality control of polygrams for examiners who request a second opinion of their charts. The requesting examiners understand that such opinions are qualified, and relate strictly to the interpretation of the chart data only. The following examiners made be contacted for anyone requesting a peer review of their polygraph charts.
|
Tom Williams
Investigative Assoc. of Charleston
P.O. Box 1238
Charleston, SC 29465
Phone: 843-579-1120
E-mail: tomcw@mindspring.com
|
Nikki Coggins
Coggins Polygraph Svc.
321Beechwood Lane
Irmo, SC 29063
Phone: 803-732-0663
E-mail:
|
|
Von Jennings
Northeast Georgia Polygraph Svc.
P.O. Box 7412
Chestnut Mountain, GA 30502
Phone: 770-967-9287
E-mail:
|
Daryl Owen
Owen Investigative Ag.
P.O. Box 4571
Greenville, SC 29608
Phone: 864-235-8599
E-mail:
|
|
Robert Drdak
DrD Consulting Group, Inc.
121 Tall Pines Court
Lake Wylie, SC 29649
Phone: 803-831-6190
E-mail:
|
Joseph Kenny
Forensic Psycho Physiologist
P.O. Box 550592
Gastonia, NC 28055
Phone: 704-552-4804
E-mail:
|
|
William Barnes
Barnes & Associates
P.O. Box 35
Florence, SC 29503
Phone: 843-673-0700
E-mail: |
Michael Lark
Lark and Associates Polygraph Service
203 Old Saluda Dam Rd.
Easley, SC 29640
Phone: 864-295-3205
E-mail: |
|