She continues. “For the record, on the day I filmed Mr. Wells at the Malibu Courthouse, February 11, 2005, he gave me a one-hour interview. He signed a release like all my other interviewees, giving me permission to use his interview in the documentary worldwide. At no time did I tell him that the film would not air in the United States.”
“Mr. Wells was always friendly and open with me,” says Zenovich. “At no point in the four years since our interview has he ever raised any issues about its content. In fact, in a July 2008 story in The New York Times, Mr. Wells corroborated the account of events that he gave in my film. I’m astonished that he has now changed his story. It is a sad day for documentary filmmakers when something like this happens.”
Zenovich also says a sequel is in the works.
Wells appeared on CNN today, and Wolf Blitzer challenged him to take a lie detector test:
Blitzer challenged Wells to a polygraph test, and he agreed to take one if his former employers at the Los Angeles County, California, District Attorney's office allow it. "I'm not going to do anything more to hamper the District Attorney's case," he said.
District Attorney's spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said the office had no position on the polygraph challenge. "Mr. Wells is retired," she said. "We have no control over him."
The results wouldn't be admissible in evidence absent the agreement of all parties. California Evidence Code Section 351.1(a) addresses the admissibility of polygraph examination results in criminal proceedings.
§ 351.1 1
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the results of a polygraph examination, the opinion of a polygraph examiner, or any reference to an offer to take, failure to take, or taking of a polygraph examination, shall not be admitted into evidence in any criminal proceeding, including pretrial and post conviction motions and hearings, or in any trial or hearing of a juvenile for a criminal offense, whether heard in juvenile or adult court, unless all parties stipulate to the admission of such results.
Under California case law, under 351.1, polygraph evidence of an attorney is also inadmissible in a state bar proceeding absent agreement by the Bar. Why? From Arden v. State Bar, 43 Cal. 3d 713 (Cal. 1987)
Because the results of polygraph examinations lack the requisite level of scientific acceptance and thus are of questionable probative value, a stipulation among the parties is required for such evidence to be admissible.
The Conference of Delegates of California Bar Associations issued a resolution in March recommending that legislation be sponsored to amend Evidence Code Section 351.1 to extend the ban to civil, family, juvenile and probate matters.
Historically, polygraph examinations have been deemed inadmissible due to: (1) their lack of scientific reliability under Kelly/Frye; (2) the lack of state oversight or standardization of polygraph examiners, their qualifications and their testing procedures,; (3) the concerns for substantially increased trial time to litigate collateral issues regarding the reliability of the test and qualifications of the examiner and (4) the concern that jurors/trier of fact would assign excessive credence to polygraph examination results.
As I wrote this morning, there are a lot of misconduct allegations against the judge in the case that don't pertain to Wells. Whether he was lying then or lying now, I doubt he will be the determining factor.
And in the "interesting connections" department, the DOJ official in the Office of International Affairs who submitted the extradition request for Polanski last week was Nicholas Marsh. Marsh was one of the prosecutors on the Ted Stevens case -- part of the team that improperly concealed exculpatory evidence against Stevens. Marsh was transferred to the OIA in June, after his service on the Stevens case.
