Oregon Conviction Tainted by Detective’s claimed Ability to Detect Lies

by Mark Wilson

On November 26, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a drug conviction, holding that a jury was unfairly prejudiced by a detective’s claim that he could determine that the defendant was lying because of pauses in his speech.

In 2010, Baker County Detective Craig Rilee followed Michael A. Watt into a restaurant across the street from the Baker City High School. Watt handed a bag to a woman inside the restaurant and left. Oregon State Police seized the bag, discovering 20 grams of methamphetamine inside.

Watts was then detained and interrogated. He told Rilee that he was in Baker City to hunt, fish and possibly buy auto parts. Rilee wasn’t buying it.

Watts was arrested on charges of methamphetamine possession and delivery within 1,000 feet of a school. The case went to trial and Rilee testified.

“I have been trained to look at all the facets of a person’s answers that they give,” Rilee told the jury. “The verbal cues, the tone and pitch of their voice.”

Rilee testified that he knew Watts was lying by the way he spoke. “When I asked a question, after numerous immediate answers and somebody pauses,” Rilee testified, “that’s an indicator to me that there’s a deceptive answer.”

The trial court overruled the objection of Watts’ attorney. “It may be worth something, it may be worth nothing,” said Baker County Circuit Judge Ronald J. Pahl. He did instruct the jury, however, that Rilee was expressing his opinion, not fact.

The jury found Watts guilty but the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. “The jury had to assess credibility in order to determine whether or not (Watts) acted with the requisite knowledge,” the Court noted. “In these circumstances, Rilee’s testimony regarding defendant’s credibility was likely to be harmful.” See: State v. Watts, 259 Ore. App. 560 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

Related legal case