Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trial Mistrial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mistrial granted after polygraph references in 252nd District Court trial
Summary
A judge in the 252nd District Court declared a mistrial after testimony and questioning referenced polygraph testing and results, prompting defense objections that the references prejudiced the jury.
A judge in the 252nd District Court declared a mistrial after testimony in a criminal trial included references to polygraph testing and, according to defense counsel, polygraph results.
The judge said the trial could not be cured and granted defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial. The jury was discharged and the court said the case will be set for a new trial.
The issue surfaced during witness questioning when Detective Mark Goodwin said officers had asked whether a suspect would be interested in a polygraph. Detective Goodwin, who identified himself as an investigator with Fort Nation police, told the court he had asked a potential interview subject if they would be interested in taking a polygraph exam. “I believe it was to, take a set of polygraph there and see if they'd be interested in taking it,” he said on the record.
Defense counsel Mister Gertz objected when testimony later indicated that another witness had taken a polygraph and that results existed. “My client declined to take a polygraph. Miss Broussard, Kristen Broussard did take a polygraph, and she failed it,” Gertz said outside the jury’s presence, arguing the reference had prejudiced the proceedings.
The judge considered case law cited from both sides and concluded the reference could not be remedied by instruction to the jury. The judge granted Gertz’s motion for a mistrial, saying the remarks had opened a door that could not be closed and that any curative instruction would risk further prejudice.
After the mistrial was granted, the judge told jurors the trial had ended and released them from duty; the court said it would set the matter for a new trial at a later date.
The record shows prosecutors and investigators had coordinated witness interviews and evidence collection before trial; the court’s order does not make findings about the underlying facts of the case. The transcript reflects that the state and defense will return to court to reschedule the proceeding.
