I appreciate the responses, however I first must reiterate that No Graphs and No charts were submitted as evidence ! This particular examiner REFUSED to show his charts or graphs whatsoever on behalf of the alleged victim. When confronted by the expert to examine my husbands charts and graphs he first threw a holy fit and was refusing to show them. Upon eventually showing my husbands  results ONLY it was discovered that a serious ERROR had taken place. The result was INCONCLUSIVE and yet he reported to the prosecutor that my husband was DECEPTIVE ! He DID NOT show up at court to testify despite the stipulation signed and agreed upon stating admissability of exam by testimony and opinion of the said examiner ! What was "called polygraph evidence submitted in this trial" was a paper saying on a computerised polygraph algorithm JOHN DOE was found to be decptive... on behalf of the victim a piece of paper saying on a computerised polygraph algorithm JOHN DOE shows no deception detected ! Each result was said by the judge to  have determined credibility of victim verses defendant. Judge ruled then victim is very credible !!! My husbands testimony DOES NOT count did not matter and since he was the only witness this was a ONE SIDED trial. The judge REFUSED the expert testimony of the polygraph expert who reviewed the exam adminstered to my husband by the initial polygraph examiner. This refusal was done the day of trial right before the trial started ! There was NO DEFENSE on behalf of my husband because of this. At no time during this bench trial was it ever said or even shown to be an intent that the polygraph was to discredit anyone. This was not discovered until the Summary Decision was issued 3 weeks later ! Never once had my husband met the prosecutor, spoke to her or had he ever been afforded an opportunity to speak about any allegations, infact until the trial day was the first any of them ever saw, met or heard what my husband had to say !. Patiently awaiting "his day in court" , 3 weeks later we learn his testimony was not CREDIBLE, because of a polygraph "said to be deceptive" with no PROOF just as the accusation that first started this prosecution. A victim's testimony  in trial under oath stated "I do not know what happened to me, I never saw the defendant harm me, it was only assumption that he did it". This is totally contrary to what was alleged for almost 8 months prior to the trial ! Yet acording to the judge and this court that was credible testimony to warrant a verdict as GUILT , based on testimony of victim and a polygraph!

George W. Maschke wrote on Aug 9^th, 2009 at 7:37am:


Not only the above, but a bar complaint against his attorney for malpractice, along with a civil lawsuit for the same would be in order.  Of course, this costs money, and no attorney I know would take a case such as this on contingency, but if you have the bucks, roll the dice.

Ohio courts are among the worst in the nation when it comes to admitting polygraph chart readings as "evidence." Apparently, they learned nothing from the case of Floyd Fay, an innocent Ohioan who was wrongly convicted of murder based on polygraph results.

If your husband's attorney advised him to submit to this pseudoscientific procedure and sign a stipulation agreeing that the results would be admissible in court, then I think his lawyer is guilty of legal malpractice, and he should seek more competent legal counsel for an appeal.

If a stipulated polygraph is taken in a state that allows them in criminal cases to be admissable as evidence (OHIO) is "a statement only" allowed as evidence saying that" JOHN DOE was deceptive ? " The stipulation signed said that the examiner would testify in trial as to the results and give his expert opinion related to the elements of the charges and that the results as well as comments made during all phases of testing would be admissable. Also the stipulation said you have reserved a right to have the results , charts and graphs reviewed with the examiner by your attorney and an examiner of your choice however no copy of the results , charts or graphs would leave the posession of the examiner. Not only did the examiner NOT testify, no post test interview was ever provided, the stipulation did not barr one either. Upon a review of the exam by another examiner it was discovered an error had taken place. There was interference of the blood pressure and breathing rate because the examinee's arms were touching his body during the entire test therefore the results were "inconclusive" not DECEPTION ! The deceptive result was admitted as evidence by a piece of paper saying the defendant was deceptive and the judge in a bench trial refused the defendant's expert witness in his defense to testify challenging the results of the deceptive polygraph ! The defendant, my husband was convicted with the judge stating "testimony and polygraph as reasons for GUILT. The deceptive polygraph determined "credibility" of the defendant and victim . The victim appeared to be very credible ! " The victim was said to have passed a polygraph however those results also were never disclosed, in fact the examiner refused to allow the expert to review those results. At the trial the victim also testified that "he did not know what happened to him and it was an assumption that the defendant hurt him." This testimony contradicted what this man the VICTIM had said for the lat 8 months ! Yet he is credible ??? I am frustrated and confused how this can be allowed. The attorney,  my husbands put it on record that the judge REFUSED exper testimony in defnse of my husband challenging the results  !  This situation is contrary to anything I can find regarding polygraphs and court stipulations. Has anyone else ever heard of such ridiculous ACTS ?