Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
How many sides does a stop sign have? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by beech trees
 - Jul 08, 2001, 02:41 PM
I thought this might be of interest to the readers:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

doing a search for 'polygraph' elicited many results:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?court=circs&CiRestriction=polygraph

I include the following passage from USA v CORDOBA:

"the district court made the following findings:

       The reliability of polygraph testing fundamentally
       depends on the reliability of the protocol followed
       during the examination. After considering the evi-
       dence and briefing, the court concludes the proposed
       polygraph evidence is not admissible under Fed. R.
       Evid. 702. Although capable of testing and subject to
       peer review, no reliable error rate conclusions are
       available for real-life polygraph testing. Addition-
       ally, there is no general acceptance in the scientific
       community for the courtroom fact-determinative use
       proposed here. Finally, there are no reliable and
       accepted standards controlling polygraphy. Without
       such standards, there is no way to ensure proper pro-
       tocol, or measure the reliability of a polygraph
       examination. Without such standards, the proposed
       polygraph evidence is inadmissible because it is not
       based on reliable `scientific knowledge.'"