cga1974 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 8:41pm:


First off, you don't "have" to take a polygraph. You cannot be compelled to submit to a polygraph interrogation in a criminal investigation. And that's what polygraph "testing" actually is: an excuse to interrogate a suspect without a lawyer present. It is apparent that you are suspected of the crime of filing a false police report. You would be wise to refuse the polygraph, retain legal counsel, and not speak with the police in the absence of counsel.

Quote:


The fact that the girl has passed a polygraph will certainly prejudice the outcome of any polygraph "test" to which you might agree.

Quote:


This is not so surprising. Polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis and is strongly biased against truth-tellers. A statistical analysis (PDF) of the best published field studies of polygraphy suggests that "if a subject fails a polygraph, the probability that she is, in fact, being deceptive is little more than chance alone; that is, one could flip a coin and get virtually the same result for a positive test based on the published data."

Quote:


To the best of my knowledge, there is no peer-reviewed research into the question you raise.

Quote:


Yes, it's precisely the same kind of thing. Polygraphy is all about interrogation. See law professor James Duane's lecture on why, even if you're telling the truth, you should avoid talking to the police:



See also police interrogator George Bruch's follow-up talk:



Quote:


See our e-book book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF). It will help you reach an informed decision regarding polygraphy and how best to proceed in your current situation.

Have you signed (or been asked to sign) an agreement stipulating that the polygraph results will be admissible as evidence at trial?

George W. Maschke wrote on Jul 31^st, 2010 at 3:50am:


Mr. Maschke, very interesting videos. Let me ask you something: if I refuse to talk to the police, won't they argue (rightly or wrongly) that my refusal to talk to them amounts to a tacit confession of guilt? If I am innocent, and know that I can prove my innocence, am I not better off telling the truth and hope that someone will believe me instead of keeping quiet and falsely projecting the idea that I'm not innocent? Keeping quiet is counterintuitive and even seems counterproductive, doesn't it?

Incidentally, do you recommend accused people in the US to waive their right to a trial by jury of their peers? Judging by the way most laypeople think, I think I would be better off being judged by a professional judge than a jury of laypeople.

cga 1974

You better find another lawyer. Any lawyer that would suggest taking a police polygraph is either with them or doesn't know doodly about the polygraph. Ask him if he will be able to attend the session. Answer: HE WILL NOT. Usually, when they ask someone to take a polygraph, they don't have enough evidence to convict you. As has been stated, guilty or innocent, the police polygrapher will fail you and use the session to to interrogate you without your lawyer being present. Don't ever forget the polygrapher IS a policeman/policewoman. Also don't believe that if you pass you will be cleared. Police are allowed to lie to get a conviction.

My advice is: If you're guilty, plead and take your medicine. Your lawyer can arrange a plea deal where you get a reduced charge and less punishment. Happens all the time. If you're innocent, tell them to stick the poly machine where the sun don't shine and fight like hell.

Did youcommit the crime?  If so, then plead guilty and accept judgment.  If not, make the cops prove a bogus case against you.  That's my thoughts.

anti- wrote on Aug 4^th, 2010 at 3:37am:

I don’t know how you read what I wrote and came to the conclusion that I play psychological games until the exhausted, desperate suspect tells me what I want to hear simply to end the mental torture I am inflicting.

Once a suspect in custody invokes his right to have an attorney present during question all questioning must stop (see Edwards v. Arizona).  In addition, officers are not allowed to do or say things are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.  There are no games or torture.  

One of the things I wrote was that a properly obtained confession is difficult to beat in court.  A confession obtained after I ignore the suspect’s invocation of his sixth amendment rights and after I play psychological games to inflict torture is not “properly obtained” and is therefore worthless.  I am not going to spend my time hunting worthless confessions.
  
Regarding your question, I and every other ethical police officer will definitely, absolutely leave the suspect alone (as in no longer conducting an interrogation, although booking and biographical data may still be obtained) once he indicates that he plans to remain silent until he gets an attorney.  To do otherwise is a waste of time and resources; not only will any confession be excluded, but any evidence that confession led to will be excluded, as well as any statements from parties identified via the excluded confession.

anti- wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 1:09am:

Yes, it does.  Once the suspect in custody invokes his right to counsel all questioning must cease and officers are prohibited from doing or saying anything reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.  It’s called the Edwards Rule, since it was based on the ruling in Edwards v. Arizona.


anti- wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 1:09am:

Yes, according to the ruling (not law) in the case of Edwards v. Arizona.  Once a suspect in custody has invoked his right to counsel, police cannot initiate further questioning under the assumption that, if the suspect answers further questions, he has decided to waive the right to counsel he invoked earlier.  Instead, once the suspect invokes his right to counsel, police officers must cease all questioning and must also refrain from any words or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.



anti- wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 1:09am:

Since the scenario being discussed is, specifically, what happens if a suspect in custody invokes his right to counsel, it is true that there are no games or torture, however you prefer to define it.  Once the suspect invokes his right to counsel there are no further questions (other than questions regarding the collection of booking and biographical data), no games, and no torture.  


anti- wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 1:09am:

Of course you don’t.  But whether you have a full confession, partial confession, or pertinent information obtained via the interview, if it was not properly obtained it is worse than worthless.  Any such information obtained in violation of the suspect’s rights will be excluded, therefore police not only have no motivation to go after such information, but are in fact actively discouraged by the courts from doing so.


anti- wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 1:09am:

There are, unfortunately, unethical police officers just like there are unethical members of every other profession.  That is not an implication; it is a fact.
Deviousness on the part of the police is completely acceptable to the courts.  There is no question about that.  However, that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.  Once a suspect in custody invokes his right to counsel all questioning must stop.  Further questioning, no matter how devious, is simply not allowed and therefore is avoided by all ethical police officers.