Legal Opinion

State v. Woo

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 17, 1974No. 43097, 43098PublishedCited by 76 opinions

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

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  3. State v. ValdezArizona Supreme Court · 1962
  4. State v. StanislawskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  5. United States v. RidlingDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1972

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by76 opinions

  1. State v. LordWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  2. State v. RupeWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  3. State v. CopelandWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Reed v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
  5. State v. GrisbyWashington Supreme Court · 1982

71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API