Two Ohio Supreme Court Justices question use of polygraph test in rape case of Hubbard man
The Supreme Court of Ohio is refusing to accept the jurisdiction over the case of a Hubbard man who was convicted of rape.
The court refused to accept jurisdiction over the case of 35-year-old Kenneth Nitso, who is currently serving a prison sentence of 30 years to life on eight counts of gross sexual imposition, rape and compelling prostitution.
The victim in the case testified that the abuse began when she was just six years old and lasted until she was 12.
Nitso appealed his conviction in this case noting four alleged lines of error including admitting a polygraph test without providing the jury a cautionary instruction, lack of effective assistance counsel, insufficient evidence and the conviction being against the manifest weight of the evidence.
While the Supreme Court concurred with the appeals court and did not take the case, two justices took issue with this ruling including Jennifer Brunner and Michael Donnelly. Specifically, the two justices took issue with the use of a polygraph test.
"I cannot believe in this day and age, juries and courts are still asked to consider polygraph evidence," Justice Donnelly said.
Donnelly went on to say there has been a statute in place for decades prohibiting the use of polygraph tests and also brought up a backgrounder from the American Psychological Association that suggested folks "remain skeptical" about the results of polygraph tests.
"The problems surrounding polygraph tests are not new. Yet it remains part of the criminal justice process. What the United States Code prohibits in deciding whether to hire someone for a job, courts permit in trials in which a criminal defendant's ultimate liberty interests are at stake," Donnelly said.
Brunner wrote in her dissenting opinion that the Supreme Court should accept this case in order to educate the appellate court on the nature and impact of the use of polygraph tests in court cases.
