My husband has been indicted along with me on federal charges.  He had no knowledge of what I was doing , but because we shared a bank account and he wrote checks, the feds say he must have known.  His attorney finally convinced the ausa to allow a polygraph test to prove his innocence.  He took this test around the first of June with the FBI.  The examiner told him that he didn't do well and that he must have know about the crime.  He then politely told him, no I did not and left.  I have read of the FBI trying to get confessions from people even if they pass the test.  To date we  or his attorney still do not have a report.  Is this good, bad or normal?  Any input would be appreciated.

beech trees

Although it is inferred, she didn't out right say that the atty. wasn't present. Even if he was there, he apparently allowed the interogation without objection. There or not, you are correct. A good lawyer should be able to have this thrown out of court because of incompetence. If this happens, the feds still have the option to a new trial, but  I would think the polygraph and other interrogations would not be allowed as evidence in the new trial. I doubt that a dismissal of charges, based on atty. incompetence, is achievable. If they loose in court, they still have one hell of an appeal.

I'd have to disagree with the assessments of this situation (as I have with similar posts in the past).   

First of all, the AUSA could not (would not) introduce the polygraph results as evidence against this individual. While some districts in federal court have allowed polygraph results to be introduced, it has nearly always been for exculpatory purposes.  I know of no federal case wherein a DI result was introduced as part of the prosecution's case.  Therefore, Beech and George are slandering this attorney by calling him incompetent, without the facts (and I suspect without a JD or any other legal / law enforcement credentials).

If the attorney did allow a post exam interview, he would be considered incompetent.  However, MrsG, makes no mention of such an interview.  She said the examiner informed her husband of the result, and he said it was wrong, and left.  That constitues neither interview, nor interrogation.  That sounds like an arranged exam, wherein the defense attorney agreed to an exam, but demanded there be no post instrument interview.  The attorney likely was present, but if he wasn't he likely has worked with the examiner before, and knew he would not violate ethics by betraying such an agreement.  If the examiner did so, any admissions made would likely be surpressed as a violation of the client's rights (unless he demanded to go against his attorney's advice, which he could do if counsel was present as well). 

While I believe Two Block is a fair minded, concerned, interested citizen; Beech and George have an agenda.  This is yet another front on their attack on the system that slighted them.  They would like to discredit lawyers who use polygraph as a resource in defense strategy/ planning; and thus reduce this use of polygraph by putting fear in attorneys that allowing an exam of a client could constitute malpractice.  Unfortunately for Beach and George, these gentlemen are obviously very much laymen in the field of the Federal Legal System.   

I have admitted to having meager, at best, credentials in the science fields, but I am no doubt a seasoned Federal Law Enforcement professional--especially experienced in these types of exams.  I can say without a doubt, Beech and George, you are either making assumptions for self-serving reasons, or your ignorance of the system at work here caused you to fill in the blanks with highly unlikely possibilities.   The passage above says nothing about an actual interrogation occuring, just that she heard the FBI might try to get a confession even if a person passed.  I inferred from this only that she suspects he might have actually passed.  I suspect that the reason he left right after receiving the result, was because that was what was agreed upon between attorney and examiner.

If information were to come forward that an actual interview geared to eliciting admissions occurred, then I would change my position on the competence of the defense attorney. For such an interview to be allowed in an exculpatory examination (again, unless the suspect demanded to make admissions against advice) would be highly irregular.  For this to be carried out, against the wishes of attorney would be misconduct that would yield nothing but inadmissible information.

The reasons for delay in receipt of report could be attributed to QC process and workload.  Or it could be an issue with discovery procedure between AUSA and defense.  It's also possible the husband's attorney is unwilling to share the info with MrsG and thus she believes he does not have what he does.  If charged, the husband's defense would likely be to claim no knowledge of her wrongdoings, or even blame her for everything. Thus his interests would conflict with hers.  He and she should have a separate attorneys and they likely won't be sharing info if the two are tried separately.

let me clarify this situation a little further.  No, the attorney was not present.  He did this as an attempt to get the ausa to dismiss charges, not to use it in a trial situation.  No, they did no specifically say that a report would be issued to us but the attorney told us he would let us know as soon as he heard something, so I assumed that there would be some type of report.  And finally, yes, we do have separate lawyers.  Thanks for all the input.

Public Servant hit it right on the head.  It's quite common to conduct exculpatory polygraph examinations at the defense attorney's request.  Although not quite as common, I have conducted polygraph examinations on suspects who have already been indicted.  George, I believe you used the term "wild conjecture" on one of these threads.  I saw alot of "wild conjecture" on this thread from both you and Beech Trees.  Shame on you.

Plain and simply put, the poly is nothing more than a tool used to try and scare the uninformed examinee (your husband) into a confession.  The tactit used by the examiner was mearly meant to try and scare your husband into "spilling the beans".  Appearantly he wasn't carrying any and did the right thing by leaving the poly exam.  Sounds to me like your husband failed the exam in the eyes of the fbi.  If you do see a "report" I am willing to bet the conclusion will be that he either failed of was inconclusive as they apparently did not get their much hoped for confession.  I would not let your husband take another one ever again.  They might try to convince your husband he needs a retest based on the results of the first.  Tell them to shove their second "exam" and get a new lawyer for suggesting your husband take one in the first place.

Public Servant,

You write to Canadian Crusader:

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


Thank you for sharing these insights. Which federal law enforcement agencies administer exculpatory polygraph examinations under the conditions you've described?

Quote:


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:


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.

Public Servant,

Of course, we can agree to disagree on the probative value of polygraph chart readings. But I would note that the National Academy of Sciences also disagrees with you.

The message thread to which you refer in which the stim test has recently been discussed is Looking for an Interesting Quote. Actually, Mark did not exactly write that he believed deception to create a response. What he wrote was, "I find it plausible that a lie will produce a strong reaction, and that reaction will be reflected on the charts during a stim test."

It should be pointed out that during the stim test, when the examinee denies having written the number he actually wrote, any reaction produced has nothing to do with a willful act of deception. The examinee's denial that he wrote the number he actually did is an act of compliance with the polygrapher's instructions and not an act of deception.

A deceptive answer to a polygraph question may or may not be accompanied by an associated physiological response measurable by the polygraph. The absence of such a response is no sure sign that an examinee's answer to a question was truthful.

It is good to know that all your examinations are witnessed by a third person. Do I understand you correctly that such third persons could include the examinee's lawyer? It is also good to know that you have no problem with exams being taped. If your agency were to make such taping routine, it would offer you and your colleagues, as well as those you polygraph, an important protection.

Allowing witnesses and taping is most certainly not the policy of the FBI, however: the Bureau does not allow anyone other than the polygrapher and subject to be present and does not allow the recording of polygraph sessions. As I said before, there is no good faith justification for this policy.

I had asked you which  federal law enforcement agencies administer exculpatory polygraph examinations under the conditions you've described (allowing defense counsel to be present and allowing taping). I think you understood this as a question about which agencies administer exculpatory polygraph examinations, but what I am asking is which ones (in stark contrast to the FBI) allow defense counsel to be present and allow taping (regardless of whether the examination is deemed "exculpatory")?

Just as I am not speaking for the FBI when I describe their policy of not allowing defense counsel to be present and not allowing the recording of polygraph examinations, I don't think your answering this question could be construed as your speaking in behalf your agency, or any other. The answer to the question I've put to you would be useful to those considering whether or not to agree to such a polygraph examination.