Eric,

First, you need to be aware that generally speaking, polygraph "test" results are not admissible as evidence in a court of law. In that sense, the polygraph cannot "clear" you.

In some states, polygraph results are admissible if the prosecution and defense both agree. Sometimes, for example, a prosecutor will tell a person suspected of a crime that no criminal charges will be filed if the person can pass a polygraph test, with the condition that the person must sign a written agreement beforehand that the results will be admissible in court. It would be foolish for you to sign any such agreement.

Educate yourself before you agree to submit to any polygraph "test." Download and read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I also suggest that you give your lawyer a copy, or tell him where to download it. While we explain how to pass (or beat) a polygraph "test," I strongly suggest that you refuse to submit. The "test" has no scientific basis and is actually an interrogation in disguise. If the police think you're their man, then there is a good chance that you will be found "deceptive" or at best "inconclusive." The polygraph results might then be leaked to the media to discredit you within your community.

Regarding the wisdom of submitting to a polygraph interrogation in a criminal investigation, see the related discussion thread Fakegrah test (sic).

Saidme,

I couldn't agree more...

you are talking about polygraphs exams (being a bunch of crap), right?  

PK

I'm not looking to be deceptive, the poly. would be at my expense, only my lawyer would see the results. We're considering doing it in an effert to get the DA to drop the charges.  They would only see them if it was in my favor and not intended to be used in court.  I am going to read the book as well. I just don't trust my innocence to be based on the results of a machine that has been proven to be inaccurate.

Public Servant,

You will recall that the advice in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for someone in Eric's position is to refuse the polygraph.

Your assumption that there will be no post-test interrogation ("interview" is a polygrapher's euphemism used when publicly discussing polygraphy) is not necessarily a sound one. Sometimes, lawyers who doubt their clients will arrange a polygraph "test" in an attempt to get at "the truth." Such a lawyer-arranged polygraph session may include a post-test interrogation.

While the result of any such polygraph seance would indeed be protected by attorney-client privilege, there is always the risk that the results might be leaked, even if the client chooses not to disclose them. This appears to be what happened, for example, with regard to O.J. Simpson's "practice" polygraph session with Edward Gelb, which was mentioned by the plaintiff's counsel while questioning Simpson in a civil trial.

In any event, it is unlikely that charges would be dropped, or an investigation turned to other suspects, based on the results of a polygraph examination that was paid for by the suspect in a case.

As for your suggestion that a polygraph examiner might "catch" Eric using countermeasures, recall that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect the kind of countermeasures explained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Countermeasure "detection" consists of little more than guesswork, bluffery, bluster, and badgering the subject for an admission. If Eric agreees to submit to a polygraph interrogation, he runs the risk that he will be suspected/accused of countermeasure use whether or not he uses countermeasures.

Eric's lawyer may well be his best advisor, but some lawyers are as ignorant of the fraudulent nature of polygraph "testing" as the public at large. I think it would be in his interest to bring the information he has learned about polygraphy to his lawyer's attention.

George

I doubt seriously any lawyer is going to allow a post-test interview of their client.

Orolan

For once you've said something that made sense.  You are correct, the District Attorney (or investigating agency) will most likely request another test with the investigating agency.  Unfortunately, in the private sector, you get what you pay for.

eric,

First, of all, you are a defendant which means that it is never your responsibility to prove your innocence.  By default, you are innocent until proven guilty.  That is your constitutional right.

Review your case.  What is the forensic evidence?  Does it involve technologies involved with DNA, trace examination, or drug analysis?  Is there a paper trail?  Without articulable facts, there is no probable cause and without empirical evidence, there is no case.

Essential, from a forensic standpoint, I am skeptical of the polygraph as it mitigates the emphasis on having the police do their own background investigation.  If they can intimidate you into conceeding that you may have had ANY involvement in a crime, they will.

Same goes for the psychological testing.  The things that are in your head cannot be extracted.  Unless, you made an admission, they cannot be held against you.  The problem with psychological evidence is that it is too easily misdiagnosed and it cannot be qualitated and quantified like real evidence (meaning the degree as to which it is involved with the case has some certainty to it).

Don't be suprised if there seem to be no limitations in the polygraph questioning as far as your personal privacy.  They may drill you on something completely irrelevant.  Polygraph is not a science and as such the examiner is not required to have any objectivity.  I had to learn that the hard way.

If you have any questions about forensic evidence, instant message me.  I may not be able to address all your concerns but I can at least refer you to someone who can.

good luck

Eric,

Your lawyer sounds like an uneducated quack for wanting you to submit to a poly.  My advise would be to get another lawyer.  Don't put your life in the hands of a polygraph exam.  You may as well flip a coin.  Heads, confess and do your time (even if you are inocent), tails go to court and proclaim your innocence.