Whether the polygraph examination is admissible under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence

itie Cause Involves cl SubstartlaJ Const ?tust,ona. I guest ?o n pursuant to Article Wi, Section Cl (8)( jz)£cl)(j’) °ftbe °h?o Constltu-hlon, omd fund om entail-fhfrness revi ecu under ffa& and lH+^ Amendments t Due. Process Clause, under ttm. J«S\ Con stltu-tlo/i, and fu/idamer-faj 'fairness ne.v?eu> under the C-h Amendment particularly ouS ihe right tv Con fnon -tartan and us tv the night tv be Confronted ony utfth credible and ad m ?ss ?b!e •&/ dene e t this case Is one of a ConstltxvtlonaJ dimension . Furthermore , m So for aSthts a. case, that frwolves a'felony and I two l ves a felony and Involves rex/?ecu of ^Sclent? ft c ^ evidence,; It Is one of Qreat public and for cjenercd Interest. The Courtof Appeals of Ohio Erred In denying the motion "ftp leave, fo file P eec ns Id eratlo n 7 and the applfcat-lon foo recons?aferat-1on , Luhlle there Is Subse^uen-t Supreme. Court-o-POhio judgmentliWal ?dating the Courtof AppeaJ s prior holding under the standard of ohlo App»R. IH(B)* The. Supreme Court of Ohio accepted 3Ln Tsd/ctton and rev?&ujed <cslmltar delayed reconsideration proceeding In StaJ-e v. Moore,/gtohlost 3d 557 lldjfino. ' ' The. Issue Is the admissibility of the polygraph examination under Daubert v. Merrell Douj Pharmaceuticalj Znc., SOt U*S. Sit, //3 S.Ch. 218S L. Ed. 2d HGt Qttd), ?n uuhlch the Supreme Count of Ohio adopted this * Unlfed^ Supreme Count case. 0 CauSe involves a case In u/hlch a polygraph examination camelnto ScVtl :'13 +he t“u*-fleL7'e2+s of adm^stbrirty under DaubeMand Fed^era.1 Rules of Evidence 102. and Ohio Rules of Evidence 702. pet,tonerLamar Reese posits that far the reasons above tha+ this Court should fake revfeuu. Q