The issue of using lie detector test is now before the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v Schaefer, which will be heard on November 3, 1997 at 10:00 a.m. This case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has dealt with this issue already, and the court found that the accused has a right to have the deception device as basically a "witness" for himself. The issue before the Supreme Court is whether President Bush in 1991 had the Constitutional liberty to quash a Sixth Amendment right by disallowing deception measuring apparatuses as evidence in the Military System of Justice. (UCMJ) The lower Appeals court said no, and the U.S. (Military) appealed.

Proponents that favor using lie detector tests as admissible evidence in trials say, "If a litigant feels a lie detector test has somehow been rigged, or tampered with, that can be challenged easily by a legitimate test." Opponents against using lie detector test in trials say, " A lie detector test gives the prosecutor a very good chance to introduce false lie detector test into evidence? All lawyers are liars, so it would be second nature for a lawyer to introduce a lie in this fashion."

Judges in America have absolute immunity, which means they are not accountable to anyone. Lies and improper evidence will not be corrected in most cases. The courts do not have an incentive to correct false evidence. In fact, false evidence works in the court's favor. Sixty nine (69) death row prisoners have been released from death row by DNA evidence. Some of the prisoners were in jail since 1971. All forms of false evidence placed the unfortunate citizens on death row.

Video cameras and audio recording devices were touted as safeguards to personal liberties, but have proven anything but true. American Injustice recently uncovered a judge that controlled the video camera, used to record a court hearing, by an on/off switch, hidden under his bench. When the judge felt evidence may be introduced that may be helpful to the defense, or he would go off in one of his tyrannical rages, the judge would turn off the video camera. Also, the video can be easily edited later to gerrymander the evidence. Amazingly, video recordings are lost with a frightening frequency and cannot be found.

The general public refuses to believe such atrocities occur in "free" America and think that everyone receives a fair trial. For example, the O. J. Simpson trial was a "freak show" that simply is not the norm for most cases. How many times do you know of a "Motion for Rehearing" being granted, because of false introduction of evidence? The Kings (judges) of Court believe they are infallible and would scorn any suggestion of false evidence.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of lie detectors as creditable evidence, the defendant will be the loser. One only has to research the gradual increase in immunities and protective measures granted to anyone remotely connected to the court system to understand. The accuracy of the lie detection device is not an issue when every court in America is filled with corrupt, untouchable prosecutors and judges. Also, the Courts claim they are overworked and are pleased to have your case out of the way.

See Remarks of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Tenth Annual Judicial Conference of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 146 EF.R.D.F 256, 257 (Apr. 30, 1992) ("One of the chief needs of our generation is to deal with the current appellate capacity crisis in the Federal Courts of Appeals. Few could argue about the existence of such a crisis, born of spiraling federal filings and an increased tendency to appeal District Court decisions"); Judicial Conference of the United States, Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts 132 (Dec. 1995) ("If conditions seriously deteriorate in the courts of appeals, it may be necessary to consider some limitations on the right to appeal").

When a video recording is made, the court reporter relies solely upon the video for the record. Any improprieties by court personnel will be covered up by lost or gerrymandered recordings. One of American Injustice's associates has been trying to get a copy of his video court hearing for three (3) years, to no avail. In addition to intentionally lost recordings, courts in some states have ruled that an indigent defendant is NOT entitled to a transcript of his trial. American Injustice's fear is that the above tragedy will be repeated over and over with lie detector tests.

The solution to cleaning up America's corrupt judicial system is to eliminate all immunities for court personnel. The checks and balancing provisions of the constitution must be applied in all cases and judges and prosecutors must be accountable for the admission of false or misleading evidence. Simply introducing more potentially false evidence and/or opportunities to gerrymander the evidence will not cure the problem of innocent people going to jail.