|Polygraph tape allowed in sexual assault trial|
|Faith Huffman | News-Telegram News Editor|
Jan. 9, 2007 - The trial for Charles W. Mick, the 36-year-old charged being tried on six counts of sex crimes against children, took an unusual turn Monday afternoon when a tape of Mick being examined by a polygraph operator was admitted as evidence in the case.
Generally, even mention of a polygraph test is barred in court. However, Mick’s attorney asked that the tape of the tape of Mick’s test be admitted because of its reference numerous times in a videotaped interview between Mick and Sulphur Springs Police Sgt. Detective David Gilmore in January of 2006. The video taped conversation between Gilmore and Mick was admitted as evidence to edit all mention of a polygraph would make large portions of the videoed interview incomprehensive or change content, defense attorney Roland “Ron” Fergurson argued in favor or admitting both tapes.
�It was mention on the tape so many times it was the only way to get the rest of the video tape in,�� Ferguson said Tuesday morning.
Fergurson said that while he realized it was “a dangerous thing we did,” allowing the polygraph tape to be played in court was the only way the defense could admit certain information or evidence “that we want in.”
Mick is accused of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of his 4-year-old daughter, and two counts of aggravated sexual assault of the child’s 7-year-old brother and four counts of indecency with a child involving the boy.
During his testimony, Gilmore said that the defendant during the initial videotaped interview denied ever even viewing his daughter’s genitalia, while he admitted to putting medication on the boys genitalia. He later told Gilmore he was untruthful regarding contact with his daughter’s genitalia during the first interview.
Gilmore also testified that the children were the ones to report the alleged abuse, that they were interviewed at the Child Advocacy Center, and based on facts learned during his investigation of the allegations, he believed the children to be telling the truth.
The detective also testified that the victims’ mother in no way had at any point given any indication or suggestion that would lead him to believe the allegations were made in an effort to keep Mick away from his daughter. In fact, he said Mick was the one that said the victims’ mother actually brought their daughter to his residence for visitation.
�She did not make the allegations. The children did,�� Gilmore said during questioning.
He also noted that the victims’ older sister was the first to become concerned after she saw the younger girl rubbing her genitalia while the 4-year-old was in the bathtub.