Prior to his indictment, but during the course of the investigation, Moultrie submitted to a polygraph examination in December 2006, administered by Clifford E. Cormany, the former polygraph coordinator for the Atlanta Division of the FBI. During the investigation, Moultrie was asked if he ever had an agreement with anyone that his company (Facility Group) would get work on the Mississippi beef project in return for making a contribution to Musgrove’s campaign and whether anyone ever told him that if his company would be provided work on the beef project in return for contributions to the campaign.
Moultrie answered “no” to both questions. It was determined by Cormany that Moultrie’s answers were “not indicative of deception.” The results were submitted to a former FBI polygraphist for quality control who scored the strength of Moultrie’s responses as a +6. The FBI requires a +4 to conclude a person has not lied.
A year later, in December 2007, after the government informed Moultrie and the others about some further developments in the investigation, Moultrie again underwent a polygraph test, administered by Richard Keifer, a former FBI head of quality control for polygraph examination nationwide. This time he was asked if he had type of agreement with anyone the his company could submit fraudulent bills on the Mississippi beef contract, to which he answered “No.”
Keifer wrote in his conclusion that Moultrie was “telling the truth.”
In his motion, Moultrie claims he offered to submit to the FBI’s polygraph testing but was denied.
Now Moultrie wants the previous two tests’ results to be submitted as evidence into his trial that is set for May 19 at the U.S. District Court in Oxford.
The hearing is set for 9 a.m. this morning and is expected to last most of the day.
Attorneys for Moultrie and the government will also argue the merits and qualification of the polygraph examiners as well as the merits of polygraphy as a science. U.S. District Chief Judge Michael P. Mills told the attorneys in his order granting today’s hearing that they should be prepared to address the usual protocol and procedure for the administration of a polygraph examination and whether that protocol was followed in Moultrie’s case.