United States v. Scheffer

Supreme Court of the United States · 1998 · Evidence

523 U.S. 303 (1998)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidencepolygraph exclusionpolygraphMilitary Rule of Evidence 707right to present a defenseSixth Amendmentevidentiary exclusionreliability

Facts

Edward Scheffer, an Air Force airman working as an informant for the Office of Special Investigations, provided a urine sample and, before learning the results, took a polygraph examination administered by an OSI examiner, who concluded the test indicated no deception when Scheffer denied using drugs since joining the Air Force. Later, OSI learned that the urinalysis revealed methamphetamine, and Scheffer was tried by court-martial on drug use and other charges. At trial, Scheffer testified and denied knowingly using drugs, relying on an innocent-ingestion theory. He sought to introduce the polygraph evidence to support his testimony, but the military judge excluded it under Military Rule of Evidence 707, which makes polygraph results, examiner opinions, and references to taking or refusing a polygraph inadmissible.

Issue

Whether Military Rule of Evidence 707, which categorically excludes polygraph evidence in court-martial proceedings, unconstitutionally abridges an accused service member's right to present a defense. More specifically, the question was whether the per se exclusion of polygraph evidence offered to bolster the accused's credibility violates the Constitution.

Rule

State and federal rulemakers have broad latitude to establish evidentiary exclusions in criminal trials. Such rules do not violate an accused's right to present a defense unless they are arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve, and this Court has found unconstitutional exclusion only where it infringes a weighty interest of the accused.

🔒

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.

At a court-martial in Norfolk, Virginia, Sergeant Luis Moreno is charged with stealing military equipment. He testifies that he never took the items and seeks to introduce a favorable polygraph examiner's opinion that he was not deceptive when denying the theft; the judge allows him to testify fully and call all fact witnesses with personal knowledge.

If the military judge excludes the polygraph evidence under a rule categorically barring polygraph results, examiner opinions, and any reference to taking a polygraph, is the exclusion most likely constitutional?

Explanation. The majority held that broad latitude exists to adopt evidentiary exclusions in criminal trials. A categorical polygraph ban is constitutional when it serves legitimate interests and does not significantly impair the defense. Here, as in the governing rule, the accused can testify and present factual evidence; the excluded proof is only expert opinion offered to bolster his credibility.