Quote:

But, the attorney would not be permitted in the actual room where the test is being administered.  The reason is this.  The person taking the test needs to pay attention to the examiner, not the attorney.

I can see that an attorney present when the charts are being collected, would be a distraction.  But what about during the pre-test and post test interrogations?

If the examiner makes false claims about the accuracy of the test (98% accurate...etc), and informed attorney would be on the spot to advise his/her client that such claims amount to nothing more than speculation and that NO evidence exists to back the claim.

If an informed attorney is present after the charts are collected, the examiner would be much less likely to "brow beat" the client.  For example:

"Mr. Examiner you keep saying my client is showing deception regarding THAT question.  You've asked if there is anything bothering him, or something that he is not disclosing.  My client has REPEATEDLY answer "no" to your questions.  Can we move on?"

As for having the undivided attention of the suspect, is that equally as true during a regular interrogation?  Yet attorneys are allowed to be present to advise his/her client of their rights.


Quote:

If the examinee is non-deceptive and has been wrongly accused or charged with a crime, the examiner is trying to successfully get that examinee through the test.  If the attorney is present in the same room, that is in itself a distraction and would not be permitted.

Again, equally true of a regular interrogation.  Isn't  the detective just trying to get at the facts?  "Just answer our questions Mr. Suspect, tell the truth, and you got nothing to worry about."  If the suspect is innocent and nondeceptive, isn't the detective just trying to "get him through". Attorneys are allowed then, and are just as much of a distraction.

TC