Case 1. United States v. Fred Massaro – Case #006273, Honorable Paul Huck Presiding

Mr. Massaro was convicted of the first-degree murder of a woman found bound in a trunk in the outskirts of the Everglades. He was charged in addition with seventeen counts of RICO violations. Mr. Massaro was tested by Mr. Bierman on the murder and called truthful in his denials of culpability in the murder.

At Mr. Massaro’s sentencing hearing, Mr. Bierman was called on by attorney for the defendant, Fred Haddad, to testify to the results of the test and did so. Following Mr. Bierman’s testimony, Mr. Haddad requested consideration under “absolute innocence” findings.

Judge Huck dismissed the argument and sentenced Mr. Massaro to “life in prison” on the murder. It was at this point Mr. Hernandez, a co-defendant in the RICO portion of the indictment, rose and asked the court’s permission to speak. Permission was granted. Mr. Hernandez then stated, “Your honor, I did the woman (the murder). Massaro had nothing to do with it.”

Fred Massaro died in prison within a few months of his sentencing while an appeal was pending.

Case 2. State of Florida v. Jose Zuniga, Case #F00-27588 and #F00-28042

Mr. Zuniga languished in jail for almost a year-and-a-half awaiting trial on two armed robberies that occurred within fifteen minutes of each other. He was tested by Mr. Bierman and found to be truthful in his denials of culpability in the robberies. Following submission of the results Dade County State Attorney’s Office asked to have their own examiner test the defendant.

This test was reported “deceptive to the relevant questions”. A meeting between Mr. Bierman and the examiner for the State’s Attorney to resolve the conflicting issue was held and the other examiner reviewed Mr. Bierman’s test charts and concurred with his truthful findings.

The State Attorney’s examiner did, however, insist that his test was accurate as well, as the defendant reacted deceptively to questions as to “knowledge of who committed the robberies”. Mr. Bierman’s response, “I did not test him on knowledge, I tested him on what he was charged with – Armed Robbery – two counts, he denied it and he was truthful to that”.

The State agreed. Charges dropped.

Case 3. State of Florida v. Nelson Del Rio, Case #01-18395 CFA – Murder 1

Mr. Del Rio was tested by Mr. Bierman in accordance with a stipulated agreement. He was charged with the first-degree murder of Jack Davidoff.

Mr. Del Rio’s initial examination was inconclusive and appeared to have been intentionally distorted and he was so informed. A few days later, based on an informant’s tip, notes that paralleled Doug Williams’ manual of instructions on “How to Sting the Polygraph” were found in his bunk beneath the mattress.

A second examination of Mr. Del Rio by Mr. Bierman indicated his truthfulness in denying the murder, but Mr. Bierman opined that Mr. Del Rio was involved with the disposal of the body.

Mr. Del Rio subsequently admitted his participation in the disposal and provided evidence and testimony resulting in the conviction of Illidio Lindo in the murder of Jack Davidoff.

Case 4. State of Florida v. John Doe (Names withheld for obvious reasons)

In January 2004 a 31-year-old father was accused of capital sexual battery, including vaginal penetration, of his eleven-year-old daughter. Examining physicians at the Rape Treatment Center reported that the daughter’s injuries were consistent with her complaint.

While the father was being tested, the daughter making the allegations called the father’s defense attorney, Mr. Fields, and left a seven-minute voice-mail message detailing how she had, with the aid and use of a foreign object, performed penetration of herself causing internal injuries. At a subsequent deposition the daughter repeated her tale of self-infliction and her need for attention.

Charges in this case are expected to be dropped.

Case 5. State of Florida v. Nelson Serrano, Case # CF01-03262A-XX

Nelson Serrano was being tried as a mass murderer in Polk County, Florida. A polygraph examination offering exculpatory evidence was conducted and a Frye Hearing held to admit the polygraph examination. Mr. Bierman was engaged to offer a second opinion on the examination and following that to provide foundation testimony for the admissibility of the polygraph test. During the foundation hearing word came down to investigators that an individual already in custody in Tennessee had admitted to the four slayings.

Mr. Seranno was convicted on four counts and sentenced to death. As of February 2009 Serrano’s conviction is being appealed before the Florida State Supreme Court. The refusal to admit the expert polygraph testimony is a significant portion of the appeal.

Case 6. United States v. Tyrone Young, Case #04-20809-CR-KING

Mr. Young was arrested and charged with Post Office robbery. He was identified by an eyewitness employee of the post office and he had a history of similar offenses. Mr. Young was tested by Mr. Bierman in regard to the Post Office robbery and found to be truthful in his denials of participation. A second concurring opinion was provided Jason Kreiss, attorney for Mr. Young, who proffered this information to both the judge and the FBI. Judge King, influenced in part or in whole by the polygraph, dismissed further proceedings. Several months later someone else was arrested and convicted of the robbery.