United States v. Lea

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001 · Evidence

249 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2001)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 403polygraph evidenceDaubertreliabilitymisleading the jurymarital communications privilegewaiver

Facts

At trial, Lea defended against the sabotage charge by trying to show that Barry Werch, a former NBP employee, was the real culprit. Lea sought to introduce testimony from Agent West that Werch's polygraph examination showed 'deception indicated,' but West could not provide accuracy statistics for the methodology used, did not know whether such statistics existed, and the examination was not completed because Werch walked out before the post-examination interview. Lea also sought testimony from Werch's ex-wife about a marital conversation in which Werch complained about maggots in the NBP plant, hoping to connect Werch to a later anonymous letter using similar language. The district court excluded both items of evidence.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion by excluding testimony about Werch's polygraph examination and by applying the marital communications privilege to bar Werch's ex-wife from recounting his statements? Did those evidentiary rulings violate Lea's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense?

Rule

A district court need not conduct a full Daubert analysis to determine the admissibility of standard polygraph evidence and may instead evaluate it under Rule 403, though Daubert factors remain a useful tool for assessing reliability because reduced reliability can increase the danger of misleading the jury and diminish probative value. The marital communications privilege applies to confidential communications made between spouses during a valid marriage and is presumed to cover such communications unless the proponent shows confidentiality was lost, including by actual disclosure of the communication to a third party. Excluding evidence that is privileged or inadmissible under standard evidentiary rules does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense unless the underlying rule is arbitrary or disproportionate to its purposes.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal arson trial in Milwaukee, Devin Cross claims that a former coworker, Nolan Price, set the fire. Devin offers testimony from an investigator that Nolan was rated "deception indicated" on a polygraph, but the investigator cannot identify the test's error rate, does not know whether any accuracy statistics exist for the method used, and never conducted the usual post-test interview because Nolan walked out.

Should the trial judge admit the polygraph testimony?

Explanation. The majority held that standard polygraph evidence may be evaluated under Rule 403, and Daubert factors are a useful guide to reliability because weak reliability can make the evidence misleading. Here, the unknown accuracy, lack of statistics, and incomplete examination all diminish probative value and heighten the danger that jurors will overvalue the test's scientific aura.