State v. Woo
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtStafford, J.
— The respondents (hereinafter defendants) were charged separately with multiple counts of bribing a public officer. At separate omnibus hearings, held pursuant to CrR 4.5, counsel for each defendant proposed stipulations for polygraph examination that generally provided for: (1) Court appointment of a “qualified” impartial polygraph operator; (2) a member of the prosecuting attorney’s staff, the defendant’s attorney, and a designated judge of the Superior Court to agree upon and draft questions to be propounded to the defendant by the polygraph operator; and (3) the recorded polygraph…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- State v. ValdezArizona Supreme Court · 1962
- State v. StanislawskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
- United States v. RidlingDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1972
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by76 opinions
- State v. LordWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. RupeWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. CopelandWashington Supreme Court · 1996
- Reed v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
- State v. GrisbyWashington Supreme Court · 1982
71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.