"I will not take a lie detector test," says Carter
Published in The Herald-News, Passaic, N.J., September 1975
Note (February 2000): In this August 1975 interview Jim Lanaras and I ask Rubin Carter to take a lie
detector test and Carter vehemently and steadfastly refuses. I went into this interview leaning in Carter's favor, but his refusal to take
the lie test was troubling and raised the first real doubts in my mind about his innocence. -- Cal Deal
In this recent interview conducted by Herald-News reporter Jim Lanaras, Rubin "Hurricane" Carter
talks about a lie detector test he took hours after a 1966 triple murder at the Lafayette Grill in Paterson.
Carter was convicted of those murders in 1967 and is now seeking a new trial.
The interview took place in Trenton State Prison Aug. 28. At that time, sources had reported that the
results of Carter's lie detector test were questionable.
Since then, however, authoritative sources have disclosed that Carter failed the lie detector test. The
man who gave Carter the test, John McGuire, an Elizabeth police officer, concluded that Carter "was involved in the crime," the
sources said.
Q. You both passed a lie detector test in Paterson that morning?
A. Yes. [See Carter's lie test report. He failed.] (same test as above)
Q. Now would you be willing to take another lie detector test.
A. No. No, of course not. There's no reason to take another lie detector test. We have already taken a lie
detector test. Take the information from that test which is closer (to the time of) that crime.
Q. Well, I heard that the outcome of the test was questionable as to whether you actually did pass?
A. Oh sure, they say that nine years later now, but they turned us loose because this man (McGuire) laid these drafts out on the table and
explained to Capt. John Goursley and all the rest of the police that this is why these two men could not have murdered these people.
Q. Well if you passed a lie detector test then, then undoubtedly you would pass one now. It certainly would help your case a great deal.
A. Would help? You got all this other evidence.
Q. We're talking about in the court of public opinion.
A. Yes, yes, but we're talking about something else here. We are talking about a fair trail.
Q. Taking another lie detector test and passing it would put an awful lot of pressure on the people in office to give you a new trial.
A. Why would it put a lot pressure on them? Why do you think....
Q. Because of public opinion. You don't think that it would be significant that you passed a lie detector test?
A. No, no absolutely not. You have the lie detector test that I passed. Take that. That is in the police hands.
Q. But if you can't get to that ... if this thing is being suppressed, destroyed, whatever it may be, why not take another test? Why not
do it again?
A. Why not look at the evidence?
Q. Why don't you do it again and say to the world, "Here is the proof"?
A. Because I don't think that you, what I think you doin' here is tryin' to, tryin' to uh, what you tryin' to do is solve the crime.
Q. I think what we're trying to say is it would help establish your credibility.
A. It would not establish anything.
Q. At a point now when, as you say, people are lining up in your corner, it would certainly buttress your case.
A. Well, you see, people are not lining up in my corner because of innocence or guilt.
Q. They think you were framed.
A. Yes. Yes, that's what they're lining up in the corner about, that a man is in jail and he did not receive a fair trial. Bello and
Bradley were the only two people that says John Artis and I had anything to do with this crime. In 1966 you willingly, readily took their
testimony as being valid. Today Bello and Bradley say Rubin Carter and John Artis did not do that, that they lied. If their testimony ought
to be enough to get Rubin Carter and John Artis out of jail.
But at any rate, you mention a lie detector test. They brought this, Mr. McGuire. And he came up here to
Paterson Police Headquarters, he set his machines up and he told me that if he found anything in this thing here that is indicative of my
guilt, that he would help put my black ass underneath the electric chair.
I will not take another lie detector test. I refuse to do it by the same token that I refuse to wear
prison clothes, as I refuse to be treated as a criminal. I refuse to take a lie detector test now under any circumstances, from anybody and
for any reason because you have evidence right here that you can deal with.
(At this point Carter is informed that The Herald-News would be willing to arrange and finance
another lie detector test.)
CARTER: Yeah, well if The Herald-News wants to take a lie detector test they can take a lie detector test
all they want to, but they will not bring no lie detector down here for Rubin Carter to take.
Q. You would refuse to take a lie detector test if one of us arranged...
A. From anybody, from anybody. If you tell me that you would give me that lie detector test and if I passed that lie detector test and if I
passed that lie detector test I would walk out that door, I'll take it.
Q. The only thing we can guarantee is that if you agree to take a lie detector test the results of that test, good, bad or indifferent,
would be in the paper. It would be there, as you say, in the court of public opinion.
A. (laughs) You feel that way see, but, uh, I don't feel that and therefore I will not take it for any reason, for anybody, for any
circumstances.
Q. You know, we're talking about something that, you know, it's dramatic. People would say, "Look at that!".
A. I understand exactly what you say. I have went through these mental gyrations before in terms of lie detector tests. I had thought about
that many times.
Q. The purpose of something like this would be to pressure the system.
A. Yes, I understand. Listen, I understand exactly what you saying, but again, that's my decision to make.
Q. What if we gave a lie detector test to Bello or Bradley and they passed?
A. That's what I been trying to do, being that I took one, I said, okay, I took a lie detector test, now give Bello and Bradley a lie
detector test, that's all. And they said no we won't do it.
Q. What has become of the original test?
A. How would I know. I had no control over these things. As far as I know it exists.
Q. Well, what would you say if Bello and Bradley took a lie detector test and they passed and you refused to take a lie detector test?
Wouldn't that look awful bad?
A. If they took a test and passed it, I would take a test. I would do that. If they took a test and they passed it from an objective
observer I would take a test.
Q. What would you call an objective observer?
A. Nobody from New Jersey. No law enforcements from New Jersey. No law enforcements period.
Q. That's the only stipulation?
A. That's the only way. [Eyewitness Al Bello took two lie tests and was found to be telling the truth regarding his identification of
Carter as one of the killers. Both examiners were from outside of New Jersey. Eyewitness Dexter Bradley, who also identified Carter as one
of the killers, refused to take a lie test before the second trial and was not called to testify.]
Q. We have contacted two people. If we were to get a person who...
A. (angry) Let me put this to rest. Let me put this rest. I will not take a lie detector test under any circumstances. Let me put that to
rest.
Q. Are you retracting what you said before about....?
A. What I don't want you to do is to try and do my thinkin for me. I do not need that. We have enough evidence here. Let's deal with this.
What you looking at here is for your own personal edification, that this guy is not guilty. That is not the issue here.
Q. The issue is not whether you're guilty or innocent, it's whether you got a fair trial?
A. That's right. And, that is the only issue we're dealing with here. When I say I am innocent, it has no bearing on people. And the only
thing that will have a bearing on people is a verdict of not guilty by a jury.
Q. Once the issue as to whether or not you got a fair trial is decided, and if they do decide to have another trial, that will settle
that argument. Then the issue will be again, when you're in the court, are you guilty or innocent and, at that point, would not a lie
detector test be to your advantage?
A. At that point, one the issue is decided that Rubin Carter and John Artis did not get a fair trial and a retrial is mandated, at that
point it would be intelligent.
Q. If the judge rules in favor of a retrial, would you then at that point agree to a lie detector test?
A. Well, let's take that when it comes. At that point a lie detector test would certainly be valid. I would take a lie detector test at
that point if the judge say, "You are entitled to a new trial and, if you take a lie detector test and that test proves favorable,
then you don't have to go to court, I'll take it.
Q. I don't foresee him saying that.
A. No, I don't foresee him saying that either, but it is at that point in which a lie detector test would become valid. What we're talking
about is the law of the land. The constitutional law, the state law. That's what I want. And that's what is violated. And that's what we're
talking about here.
Carter again refuses to take a lie detector test
Interview with Rubin Carter, Clinton State Prison, December 1975.
This interview was arranged by Bob Miller of WABC-TV in New York. He brought me along to assist because
of my familiarity with the case and because my approach to the story had been a lot tougher on Carter than the "cream puff
questions" the rest of the press was throwing at Carter, according to Miller.
Four months earlier, Reporter Jim Lanaras and I had interviewed Carter in Trenton State Prison and had
offered to give him a lie detector test, which could have helped him prove his innocence. Carter vehemently refused to take the test. I
took advantage of this interview to follow-up on that line of questioning (This excerpt from the interview is unedited.) -- Cal Deal,
2/11/00
DEAL: You've refused to take another lie detector test, is that right?
CARTER: Why should I take another lie detector test? I took a lie detector test in 1966 hours after the
crime took place.
DEAL: The authorities say that you failed that test.
CARTER: Bring that test forward.
DEAL: If you want that test to be made public, all your attorney has to do is write a letter to the
prosecutor....
CARTER: Bring that test (inaudible) forward.
DEAL: Ask your attorney to write a letter to the prosecutor.
CARTER: Why should I ask the attorneys....
DEAL: Because that's the only way it can be released. If that story was inaccurate, that you failed a
lie detector test, all your attorney has to do is write a letter to the prosecutor and get the report himself.
CARTER: Do you have the chart? Do you have the report?
DEAL: I do not.
CARTER: Well the, how could you say I failed it if you don't have the report? That's another vicious lie
of yours.
DEAL: Well you could easily disprove it if your attorney would get the report.
CARTER: Well why should I have to disprove it if you cannot prove it?
BOB MILLER: OK, Cal, what I think you told me before when I asked you the same question he's asking you
is that you had talked to another reporter who had seen it. Is that correct?
DEAL: Uh, well I don't want to get into that, but we have reliable information, very reliable
information, that both Rubin Carter and John Artis did fail the lie detector test. I talked to Mr. Carter's attorney and he said he was
going to speak to the prosecutor about that and, as far as I know, he never has. And I understand that, if they wanted that report to be
released, they would simply have to write a letter to the prosecutor and it would be turned over to them.
MILLER: OK, getting back to the idea of taking another test, why not? Could it be harmful to you?
CARTER: Why should I? Could it do me any good?
MILLER: If you pass it with flying colors, sure.
CARTER: Oh no, no. You got evidence right here. What we're talking about here, what we're talking about
here is what's right and what's wrong. We're talking about whether men received a fair trial after being accused of a crime. That's what
we're talking about. All the evidence shows, today, that there's no way in the world that John Artis and Rubin Carter received a fair
trial. There's too much suppression of evidence. Even the prosecution's own witness, Bello and Bradley, said that they lied, that they were
coerced into lying. That they were promised deals and rewards. That they told lies. If Bello's and Bradley's testimony is the only
testimony that they had to convict us, then in equal justice, as the system is supposed to be, then their testimony is enough to give us a
fair trial free from the perjured testimony. We have enough in front of us right here, right now to deal with, which nobody is dealing
with. The United State Supreme Court again says, in (unintelligible) vs. Illinois in 1959 decision, says that if deals, rewards and
promises are made, that these things should be brought to the attention of the jury, by the prosecutor, if the prosecutor allowed perjured
testimony to be introduced at trial, then the conviction cannot stand.
MILLER: However, Cal and I, at least certainly on my part, I don't think we're questioning whether you
should get a new trial. I think we're questioning your innocence or your guilt.
CARTER: Well, in court, I questioned my innocence or guilt too, because I know that I am not guilty of
this. I know that I did not commit the crime. However, again, on June 17, 1966, when John Artis and I were at this police station for 17
hours, when they asked us if we would take a lie detector test, and I told them that I would take a lie detector test as long as no
Paterson police officer gave it to me. And they brought in Sgt. McGuire from somewhere else to come and give us the lie detector test and
this man gave us a lie detector test and then sat down there and told the police why John Artis and Rubin Carter could not have been
involved in this crime. And at that point, the police give me my car keys and let me go. Isn't it inconceivable that if John Artis and
Rubin Carter would have failed that test the very same day that this crime took place and, isn't it inconceivable that, a year later, the
police come to court and said that they found two live bullets in my car on that very night. Isn't it inconceivable that if two black men
committed this crime and the police said they found two live shells in the car and the police -- that I failed the lie detector test, isn't
it obnoxious to think that they would let me walk out of there?
MILLER: It seems inconceivable to me...
CARTER: Of course it is.
MILLER: It also seems a little inconceivable to me that you wouldn't want to prove your innocence
beyond any shadow of a doubt and take another test.
CARTER: I want to prove my innocence beyond any shadow of a doubt, but why should I give you extraneous
matter when you have law matters right here at hand that says that we did not receive a fair trial. That's what I'm talking about. You have
that. you have laws into effect today that says that. If people didn't receive a fair trial, then they ought to get a fair trial. Now if
you're not moving on that, how am I gonna assume that you're going to move on something else? Let's deal with what we got here.
Interview moves to another subject.
Refusal #3: "Pass a lie test and go free" ... Carter
rejects Prosecutor's incredible, no-lose offer! (1976)
Letter with offer from the
Prosecutor
Letter of reply from the Defense (Page
1) (Page 2)
Prosecutors Letter To The Court Regarding The Denial Of Offer:
The following is an excerpt from a letter mailed less than a month after Carter and Artis were
convicted for the second time.
January 10, 1977
Honorable Brendan T. Byrne
Governor of New Jersey
State House Annex
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Dear Brendan,
-------------EXCERPT--------------
I also offered the defendants the opportunity of escaping trial and conviction if they were innocent. In separate letters to each of the defendants, well prior to the trial, I offered them lie detector tests. I advised them that I would engage nationally known experts to conduct the tests; that if either one passed the tests, I would move to dismiss the indictments as to that person; and if they did not pass the test, I would not insist that the tests be admitted into evidence.
Hence, the defendants had a "no lose" opportunity to escape prosecution. They both refused. So much for the cries of innocence."
-------------EXCERPT--------------
Sincerely,
Burrell Ives Humphreys
Passaic County Prosecutor
(All this info from Cal Deal's Website; Used with permission)