"Earlier, defense lawyer Stephen Marsh told The Associated Press that the Georgia Department of Corrections denied his request to allow Davis to take a polygraph test. Marsh had said he hoped the polygraph would persuade the state pardons board to reconsider a decision against clemency." 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44592285/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.TnovYpZA6Ac

What if you were innocent and the results came back negative? But if you "pass" it seems there are those who won't believe you anyway.

Really, what if? What if he did get a polygraph and he was scored as having told the truth. "But, but, he told the truth and you killed him anyway?" It is kind of deafening.

George it is your advice to not take a polygraph examination.  Now you advocate, or persons posting on this board advocate that as a last ditch effort to save this man, polygraph be used.  If it is pseudo science, as advertised here, why would the courts or you be favorable and ask that it be used?

The Defendant should have done polygraph testing long ago in this case.  Studying the case gives me the impression that he may be innocent.  I sincerely doubt the courts in Georgia will accept polygraph evidence.   

This is from a search of laws regarding admissibility in Georgia:

States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone agrees to them, but may put different emphasis on the tests accuracy.   

Georgia, on the other hand, allows defendants who suffer damage because of a false result on a polygraph test (which are somewhat frequent) to sue the polygraph operator for damages 

Bill_Brown wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2011 at 12:11am:


Incorrect. http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol18/iss1/36/.

It's a moot point now, but let's suppose a test was conducted, Davis was scored as no deception indicated, and using some literature/resources, a 90% "accuracy" rate is referenced (which is lower that one advertised here: http://www.theftstopper.com/polygraph_employee_theft.htm).

Outcome 1: deception indicated
Well, that just confirms what we already knew/believed: he is guilty, off with his head

Outcome 2: no deception indicated
Given that the prosecution didn't use it in the first place, and already have the utmost confidence in the strength of the case presented, backed up by findings from appeals and reviews, the 10% chance the results are wrong is good enough to proceed with the execution. Who would want to defend that reasoning?

Either way, it is good that polygraphers stayed inside their little industrial park or strip mall offices, filled with the cheap furniture and walls covered with plaques from no-name schools or institutes, and did not offer their truth-divining service in the cause of "truth, justice, and the American way" because the truth of the matter is this: it is unreliable, has practically no validity, is a convenient tool for bullying job candidates, and is not used when it really matters.

oh, so polygraph works! No, wait it doesn't work!  No, wait, it only works if it vindicates you, it doesn't work if it confirms your guilt!  No, wait, it only works in crim specific, it doesn't work for preemployment!  No, wait,....

George

In fairness to the state of Georgia, Davis had twenty-two years to seek a polygraph, if he really wanted one.

I see no incongruity in the state recognizing polygraph as a useful, valid investigative tool, but refusing to substitute a polygraph result for a jury's lawful verdict in a criminal case.