Moultrie had a Daubert hearing ee-i-ee-i-o

After the posting on dog days of insurance and a new way to skin a cat bond, news of a hearing in USA v Moultrie brought to mind here a cow, there a – oops, that’s the whole point isn’t – there were no cows $55,000,000 tax-payer dollars later.

Later is when we’ll find out why, too, the trial was moved to August.

Judge Mills not only granted the Motion for Continuance, he allowed the Daubert hearing that took place in Oxford last week. Daubert hearings are thought of as a trial within a trial – if you’re unfamiliar with these hearings to admit scientific evidence, you may find the information here helpful.

The government opposed the Defense request for the hearing; and, frankly, I’m surprised Judge Mills granted the request – read on and you may be, too.

The results of polygraph examinations are rarely admissible in criminal jury trials for any purpose. Great care is usually taken by all parties to ensure that matters concerning the results of polygraph examinations of witnesses or defendants are not disclosed until the issues concerning their admissibility can submitted to the Court, usually in camera, so as not to unduly prejudice any party.

Defendant ROBERT L. MOULTRIE has moved for a Daubert hearing and to introduce the results of two privately-administered polygraph examinations that Moultrie participated in without the prior knowledge or involvement of investigative agencies of the United States or the State of Mississippi.

Moultrie also claims that the government refused to offer an FBI polygraph to his client. This is simply incorrect as will be discussed below.

Based on the tone and content of Moultrie’s motion, the manner in which it was filed, the attached exhibits and current Fifth Circuit precedent, the United States is skeptical of the true purpose of Moultrie’s motion. In addition, the United States disagrees in several respects with the disingenuous and incomplete recitation of events contained in the Motion. Therefore, to accurately develop the record and to provide the Court with relevant precedent concerning the admissibility of Moultrie’s polygraph results, the United States responds as follows and submits that Moultrie’s motion is contrary to Fifth Circuit precedent, without merit and should be denied.

Alyssa Schnugg had a background story in the Oxford Eagle. Perhaps she covered the Government’s objections in an earlier story and I missed it as there’s no mention here.

A defendant in the federal corruption trial tied to a failed Mississippi beef processing plant in Yalobusha County is asking the court this morning to allow the results of two polygraph tests to be introduced as evidence in his upcoming trial.

Robert Moultrie, 57, of Smyrna, Ga., chairman and chief executive officer of The Facility Group, was indicted in March along with two other company executives for allegedly corruptly giving campaign donations to a Mississippi official to reward the official for the state’s hiring of the Facility Group…

In his motion, Moultrie claims he offered to submit to the FBI’s polygraph testing but was denied.

Now Moultrie wants the previous two tests’ results to be submitted as evidence into his trial that is set for May 19 at the U.S. District Court in Oxford…

Attorneys for Moultrie and the government will also argue the merits and qualification of the polygraph examiners as well as the merits of polygraphy as a science. U.S. District Chief Judge Michael P. Mills told the attorneys in his order granting today’s hearing that they should be prepared to address the usual protocol and procedure for the administration of a polygraph examination and whether that protocol was followed in Moultrie’s case.

The Government’s response and exhibits are posted at USA v Moultrie under Legal on the left sidebar along with the Indictment, Motion for Continuance, and Exhibit to the Motion (1 of 1) that appeared in earlier posts. h/t bellesouth

These documents, other than the Motion for Continuance and related Exhibit, represent only the Government’s position – but it certainly is an interesting position. For example, the story in the Eagle reports the Motion filed by Moultrie’s defense claimed he had offered to submit to an FBI polygraph but was denied.

Exhibit 5, however, confirms his willingness was conditioned on several factors – including his being given the questions ahead of time! No wonder the Government’s response said the Motion prepared by Moultrie’s defense contained a disingenuous and incomplete recitation of events.

Slabbed will continue to update the USA v Moultrie Legal page, as well as report Judge Mill’s decision, as documents become available.

Related Posts

Georgia on my mind

Pleas and fleas keep you scratching

With our deluxe indictment, you can be “leaving on a jet plane”

…and with our super-deluxe indictment, you can brown your beef by the pool

Judge Mills moo-ves trial date for USA v Moultrie to August 25

“If you’re not confused, you’re not paying attention”

3 thoughts on “Moultrie had a Daubert hearing ee-i-ee-i-o”

  1. Alyssa Schnugg pretty much writes whatever Lotus and NMC at Folo tells her Nowdy. I looked around and saw no other media outlet I could find giving this any coverage let alone the biased kind not rooted in any journalistic standard for news reporting.

    Now that Phelps Dunbar staff attorney Jane Tucker evidently made an ass of herself running down Oliie Diaz and Chuck McRae I guess NMC will have to pick up his own slack giving as much favorable pre trial publicity to his cleint Robert Moultrie.

    sop

  2. Sop, you’re right about the absence of media coverage outside Oxford but this has been a big story in Oxford from day one – even the earlier convictions didn’t get a lot of coverage.

    I hope now that I’ve posted the documents, Alyssa will want to find out what the USA thought was so unusual about the way the Moultrie’s defense (NMC/Freeland) made the Motion.

    You’re own your own about the other…I missed it – but hope you’ll cut Alyssa some slack.

  3. Maybe my cyncism of the financial press is spilling over Nowdy. But it seems to me that a “news” story based on one side of the argument is not news. Rather it’s opinion.

    Alyssa and the Oxford Eagle have a well documented relationship with the Folo blog including printing their articles ahead of publication. What they do is their own business of course but my cyncism at the story is rooted in knowing those relationships as well as the role Folo moderator NMC has in the criminal case.

    Just saying……

    sop

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *