Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Attorneys for Joseph Collins, the Mayer Brown partner who was indicted for his role in the alleged financial fraud at failed commodities brokerage Refco, are battling with federal prosecutors over whether results from a polygraph taken by Collins should be admitted into evidence for the lawyer’s trial. Attorneys at Cooley Godward Kronish who are representing Collins said in a court filing that they asked him in June to take a polygraph test after federal prosecutors claimed to have evidence Collins helped Refco conceal $1.1 billion in company debt. The defense hired Barry Colvert, a former FBI agent, to give Collins the exam. “Colvert reported to me that Collins had not only passed the examination, but had done so with flying colors,” Cooley Godward attorney Jonathan Bach said in the June 27 filing. The defense attorneys gave a copy of the report to the prosecutors and said that Collins was willing to submit to an additional government polygraph test, but prosecutors argued in an Aug. 1 court filing that the results shouldn’t be accepted as evidence partly because the government wasn’t notified of the exam and didn’t have a chance to participate in it. The prosecutors also argued that the tests are unreliable and that the results may unfairly prejudice the jury. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York filed the indictment of Collins last December, charging him with conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud and making misstatements to auditors, among other charges. The case is being handled by Judge Leonard Sand of the Southern District of New York. U.S. v. Collins, No. 07-1170. Collins is on leave from the law firm. While the results of polygraph exams have been accepted as evidence in courts on occasion in recent years, it’s still not a widely accepted form of evidence. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Scheffer, determined that there’s no consensus on the reliability of polygraph results and left it up to federal judges to decide whether to accept such evidence. Federal prosecutors said in their filing opposing the acceptance of the results as evidence that “it has long been the rule of the Second Circuit that polygraph evidence is not admissible.” Collins’ lawyers countered in a filing that the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has not barred polygraphs and that a hearing is required to determine the admissibility of the results, which they say are “reliable” and “relevant.”

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.