Public Servant,
You write to Canadian Crusader:
Quote:In a situation like the one described, what other method of corroborating his claim of no culpable knowledge/involvement, would MrsG's husband have, other than an NDI exam?
An NDI ("No Deception Indicated") CQT polygraph examination would have provided no genuine corroboration, because the "test" has
no scientific basis. At best, such an outcome
might provide bureaucratic cover that a prosecutor could use to justify his decision to drop charges.
Quote:You say a second exam should be out of the question (and seem to say any should have been). But this site says anyone could easily beat a polygraph...so shouldn't lawyers and their clients be beating down the examiners' doors to obtain exculpatory evidence. You can't have it both ways!
If certain protections (such as the lawyer's right to be present, video/audiotaping, no post-test interrogation) were in place, then perhaps, in cases where the prosecution is foolish enough to make decisions on the basis of CQT polygraphy, lawyers and clients
should be beating down the polygraph examiners' doors to obtain "exculpatory" polygraph examinations.
But in the case of the FBI, it appears that no such protections exist. According to a recent
report of investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York:
Quote:It is the Government's understanding that, according to FBI protocol, no one other than the polygrapher and the examinee are allowed in the polygraph room during the administration of the
exam because the presence of other parties may influence the results and render the exam not objective.
We also know that it is the FBI's policy not to audio- or videorecord polygraph examinations -- a policy that has no good faith justification.
Quote:On the topic of exculpatory exams...
I can't speak for the FBI, but they are quite common within Federal Law Enforcement. The examiner would agree not to attempt to elicit any admissions and just run a good exam. The attorney may or may not be present, but the examiner would have instructions from the attorney regarding any spontaneous incriminating statements (usually to stop and defer to the attorney) and that no post-test interview could be conducted. The defense attorneys are people we work with regularly. Unlike on TV, it is not a completely adversarial relationship.
Thank you for sharing these insights. Which federal law enforcement agencies administer exculpatory polygraph examinations under the conditions you've described?
Quote:The attorney would have to turn to the LE agency, because the prosecution would likely not accept polygraph results from a private examiner. If the defendent paid the examiner, who's to say he's not getting what he paid for, regardles of what is the truth.
Indeed, if the a defendant's attorney hires a private polygraph examiner, and the results don't come out to his liking, he can choose not to disclose them and seek out other polygraphers until he obtains a favorable outcome.
Quote:It's easier for a defense attorney to defend his client if he knows what the truth is. That's the service polygraph offers defense attorneys.
If only that were so... But the polygraph does not detect lying or deception, nor does it "verify the truth" as some polygraphers are fond of saying. It is a mistake for any attorney to rely on polygraph chart readings to determine whether his client is telling the truth.
In any event, if an attorney wanted to use a polygraph examination in an attempt to assess his own client's veracity, it would be unwise for him to turn to the FBI to provide that service.