This is why Polygraph as opposed to DNA is not admissible in court
The legal fact that polygraph itself is not admissible in court
results are not admissable in court
makes the test inadmissable in court
insignificant in a court of law
Polygraphs are not admissible in court
So much so that THEY ARE STILL NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT
The good part is that the test results are not admissible in court
that’s why Polygraphs and poligraphers opinions are not admitted in court.
Like I said it's already useless in court
And if the results are not admissible in court then are the results really "evidence
( results are not admissible in court)
THANK GOODNESS THIS BS TESTING IS NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT
I guess that is why poly's are not admissible in court

GENERALLY SPEAKING POLYGRAPH IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN COURT AS DNA AND OTHER PROVEN TESTS ARE.... and ....
Polygraphs are rarely admissible in court.

I am sure that most victims that visit this site will see what I wrote was in fact accurate. oh...... except for New Mexico

"the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and the Court of Military Appeals permit admission of polygraph evidence even in the absence of a stipulation when special circumstances exist. The Third and Seventh Circuits permit polygraph evidence to be introduced for the purpose of rebutting a claim by the defendant that his confession was the result of coercion. United States v. Johnson, 816 F.2d 918, 923 (3rd Cir.1987); United States v. Kampiles, 609 F.2d 1233, 1245 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 954, 100 S.Ct. 2923, 64 L.Ed.2d 812 (1980). The Tenth Circuit has permitted the government to introduce the fact that the defendant failed a polygraph test to explain why the police detective had not conducted a more thorough investigation. United States v. Hall, 805 F.2d 1410 (10th Cir.1986). In its attempt to mitigate the potential problems with polygraph evidence, the Sixth Circuit has promulgated a two-step approach to admission. Wolfel v. Holbrook, 823 F.2d 970 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1035, 98 L.Ed.2d 999 (1988). "First, the trial court must determine if the proffered evidence is relevant. Second, if the court concludes that the proffered evidence is relevant, it must balance the probative value of the evidence against the hazard of unfair prejudice and/or confusion which could mislead the jury." Id. at 972. The Ninth Circuit holds polygraph evidence admissible only in instances narrowly tailored to limit the prejudicial impact of the evidence. United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1989). The Miller court, in considering prior Ninth Circuit cases on this issue, noted that polygraph evidence might be admissible if it is "introduced for a limited purpose that is unrelated to the substantive correctness of the results of the polygraph examination." Id. at 1261. In United States v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 1337, 1341 (9th Cir.1988), the court held that if "the polygraph evidence is being introduced because it is relevant that a polygraph examination was given, regardless of the result, then it may be admissible"

It would just be an example of an error and errors occur in ANY scientific test.

Quote:


OK pay attention. ANY scientific test by definition must have an error rate. If there is no error rate it cannot be called a scientific test. Scientific tests have accuracy rates and error rates. Accuracy Rate is what you have left after you subtract the error rate from 100% .Error rates are made up of False Positives and False Negatives. In Polygraph a False Positive is where the results of the examination indicate deception when the subject is telling the truth. A False Negative in Polygraph means that the results indicate truthfulness when the subject was in fact lying regarding a relevant issue. If you add the number of false positives to the number of false negatives and calculate the total as a percentage of the tests in a given group, you have the error rate.  

Generally in polygraph there are 3 possible results for examinations. Deception Indicated, No Deception Indicated and Inconclusive. Inconclusive results are not part of the error rate. Inconclusive just means that the data was unsuitable for evaluation. The NAS study said that more research needed to be done to quantify the error rate in polygraph. They said the same thing when they reviewed DNA research. 

I can't tell you every possible thing that could cause an error in a polygraph test any more than you could tell me every possible thing that could cause an error in a DNA comparison.  From the literature I have read, polygraphists shouldn't do an exam after an aggressive interrogation due to the possibility of physiological exhaustion causing an error, they don't permit extra people in the polygraph room in order to avoid errors caused by distraction due to talking or movement of the 3rd party, they don't test people with recent injuries to avoid errors caused by chronic pain and they don't conduct tests on people unable to comprehend the meaning of questions to avoid errors caused by misunderstanding the meaning of a question, etc. I can't name them all but errors do occur. If you look at other scientific tests you would discover that many have a much higher error rate than any quantified by known studies for polygraph.  A TB skin test for example has an error rate between 30 and 70%.

Error rates cannot be affected from within a testing protocol. If you change your scoring/evaluation criteria to reduce false positives, false negatives will increase proportionately. Error rates can only be changed by altering the protocol in some fashion. 

Since all scientific tests have error rates, necessarily forensic examinations used by the police also have error rates and a false positive in any of them could put a suspect in exactly the same predicament as a false positive in a polygraph test. 
This includes but isn’t limited to:

Latent Fingerprint comparison:   The FBI AFIS system sometimes provides dozens of probable matches that require further investigation. Sometimes it only kicks out one match and it’s the wrong guy. Why? I don’t know. Do you?
I won’t do that with the rest  but they all have error rates
Blood Alcohol Analysis (Breath)
Blood Alcohol Analysis (Blood)
Handwriting Comparison
Statement Analysis
Determination of speed from skid marks
Determination of speed from yaw marks
Determination of speed from deformation of metal
Presence of blood
Presence of human blood
Marijuana field test
Marijuana Lab test
Heroin Field test
Heroin Lab Test
as a matter of fact to save time all presumptive tests for drugs whether in the field or lab have error rates.
Urinalysis
Ink analysis
Identification of trace evidence
Foot Print Comparison
Puzzle fit analysis
Ballistics
Hair Analysis
I still stand by my previous post that if you took all of the people who have posted on this board during the last 8 years whining that they told the truth and failed their polygraph and added them to the 1325 signatures including Joke Names, Duplications and  Line Voided, during that same time period, and compared them to the number of polygraph tests administered during that same time period, you would find that you are a member of a  very tiny yet vocal group, even if you assume that every one of your number is the victim of some error.  

I would argue that if every one of you were found to have some error on your polygraph you couldn't successfully invalidate the 98% accuracy rate claim that Jack Trimarco allegedly made to Dr. Maschke regarding polygraph.

While an error in your particular case may be significant to you because of your personal involvement, the mere possibility that an error was made in your case is not that significant to the big picture.

Do you really think your interrogation would have been any less traumatic if you didn’t take a polygraph and the investigator decided you were the culprit? You just decided to focus on polygraph as the source of your discomfort when it was the interviewer that made you feel bad. 

I don't know of anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime based solely on the results of a polygraph, but a blanket statement that they cannot be admitted as evidence is innacurate. 

Sancho Panza  The character was the voice of reason in the face of insanity.

Or Perhaps a Fine Cigar

NotGuilty! Wenn Ihre [highlight]Großmutter Hoden hätte, würde sie Ihr Großvater sein[/highlight]

Let's use your example minus your unfounded presumptions. 
"A women (Do you means woman or multiple victims?) has been raped, a suspect is arrested, as part of the interrogation a Polygraph is administered. The suspect fails or passes the Polygraph, a confession is not attained. DNA evidence is found at the scene and on the victim, it's a match to the suspect.
At trial do you think that the Polygraph results will even be entered (what ever they may be) into the trial? I think not since they have a silver bullet in the DNA evidence a fully admissible scientific test that yields consistent valid and reliable results. "

As to your question about Polygraph,  It's not up to me, It's up to the judge what evidence is admitted and if you have read my previous post regarding the courts where polygraph has been admitted and the criteria for admission you will see that it might go either way.

As to whether or not the DNA is a "Silver Bullet" It is not absolute proof. In order to admit the DNA, the prosecutor has to prove that the victim was indeed raped, that the rapist actually ejaculated or leaked seminal fluid,(Many Rapists Don't),that the source of the DNA was really seminal fluid and uncontaminated by blood or epithelial cells,  that the seminal fluid was not transferred from another surface to the victim by contact,(Locard's Principle in action), that other possible suspect's know or unknown semen or DNA samples were not present. (Hotel Bedspreads may have stains or transfers from dozens of donors; Home bedding may have several depending on the habits of the people who live in the house and the quality of the alleged match. (1 in 1000 vs 1 in a trillion).  Then you have to prove that the sample was collected according to accepted forensic protocols, that the laboratory followed proper analysis procedure and finally that there was no police misconduct. 

I assure you any defense attorney that didn't get his Law Degree from a box of Cracker Jack is going to attack all of those issues because if he can raise reasonable doubt in the mind of a single juror on just one of those issues, then the rapist walks out of court laughing at the system. Assuming of course, they had the right guy to begin with.  Remember, due to pre-trial discovery the defense attorney gets to plan his attack for months before the trial.

Even if you reconstruct your scenario to repair all those dents I just put in your "Silver Bullet" my answer regarding polygraph will still be based on what the courts have said so far. In other words It's not up to me, It's up to the judge what evidence is admitted and if you have read my previous post regarding the courts where polygraph has been admitted and the criteria for admission you will see that it might go either way. One of the errors in your scenario would be that if the polygraph were offered as evidence by EITHER SIDE the results of the examination would be material to the probative value of the evidence, whether it bolstered the states evidence or refuted it.

I also have a problem with calling a test that can return match results anywhere from  1 in a thousand to 1 in a trillion "Consistent"

Of course all things being equal, an admissible confession in a rape case generally results in a Plea Deal, thus saving the victim from further trauma at the hands of the defense attorney and the state would save the time and expense of defending all of those attacks on your Silver Bullet.

Really Notguilty1   MOVE ON


Sancho Panza