- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 08, 2021, 03:09 PMQuoteWhat about the post polygraph interrogation. They are two different things. Two separate procedures. Isn't it true that the interrogation can be watched by jurors without the polygraph test. Can't the mention of polygraph be redacted before the recording is presented?
Post-test interrogations are indeed sometimes played in court with mention of the polygraph redacted.
Posted by Debora L Gillis
- Jul 08, 2021, 12:02 PMWhat about the post polygraph interrogation. They are two different things. Two separate procedures. Isn't it true that the interrogation can be watched by jurors without the polygraph test. Can't the mention of polygraph be redacted before the recording is presented?
Posted by polyscam
- May 24, 2005, 05:51 AMThePeaceMaker12 wrote:
Please re-read the link you have provided. It is one case. A case in which other cases were cited. It however does not mention a total legal prohibition of entry of polygraph "evidence" in a court of law. Further, the statement includes a portion referring to unsolicited exams adminstered by a private polygraph examiner.
I understand your frustration. I have experienced similar frustration after having been determined deceptive, although I was not. Since that time I have studied polygraphy and laws related to it. I have contacted legislators both nationally and in my state. Unfortunately, to date I have never received a response.
If I have offended you I apologize. I was simply offering up a correction to a blanket statement you made regarding admissibility. Perhaps you reside in a state that has ruled polygraph cannot be entered into evidence. If this is your case, that's great. However, every state in the union is not the same. If so, there would be no need for statehood only federal control. I have offered up examples for you. If you want to argue the facts, it will fall upon deaf ears. I agree with your opinion that polygraph findings should not be allowed into court whatsoever. However, the opinion does not match what some states' laws state. Sorry
QuoteI found this court document off the Department of Justices website which says that polygraphs have been ruled inadmissable in court like my attorneys have said:
Please re-read the link you have provided. It is one case. A case in which other cases were cited. It however does not mention a total legal prohibition of entry of polygraph "evidence" in a court of law. Further, the statement includes a portion referring to unsolicited exams adminstered by a private polygraph examiner.
I understand your frustration. I have experienced similar frustration after having been determined deceptive, although I was not. Since that time I have studied polygraphy and laws related to it. I have contacted legislators both nationally and in my state. Unfortunately, to date I have never received a response.
If I have offended you I apologize. I was simply offering up a correction to a blanket statement you made regarding admissibility. Perhaps you reside in a state that has ruled polygraph cannot be entered into evidence. If this is your case, that's great. However, every state in the union is not the same. If so, there would be no need for statehood only federal control. I have offered up examples for you. If you want to argue the facts, it will fall upon deaf ears. I agree with your opinion that polygraph findings should not be allowed into court whatsoever. However, the opinion does not match what some states' laws state. Sorry
Posted by ThePeaceMaker12
- May 24, 2005, 02:28 AMQuote from: Jeffery on May 24, 2005, 02:22 AM
Probably not; because only a brain dead defense attorney would agree in advance to let his client take one. I'm no lawyer and no expert here, but I'd think that the polygraph would have to be specifically and explictly agreed to in advance for it to be admissible under the hypothetical situation. A polygraph the cops give a suspect without a lawyer wouldn't be admissible (based on what I know; not sure about New Mexico etc).
Heh, well I never took a polygraph during a criminal investigation but that is all I will say. Not that I have anything to hide or anything, it's just that I know polygraph operators read this site and it was a polygraph operator who branded me a "liar" when in fact I was telling the truth so I do not trust them. I have learned that sometimes political pressure will make the police or organization go after somebody innocent in the effort to appease that political pressure. This political pressure is what causes innocent people to be railroaded.
Posted by Jeffery
- May 24, 2005, 02:22 AMQuote from: ThePeaceMaker12 on May 24, 2005, 02:17 AM
So here is a question I have Jeff. If it is to the advantage of a prosecutor to have polygraph results in court....do these results all the sudden become admissable and only admissalbe if helps the prosecution's case?
Probably not; because only a brain dead defense attorney would agree in advance to let his client take one. I'm no lawyer and no expert here, but I'd think that the polygraph would have to be specifically and explictly agreed to in advance for it to be admissible under the hypothetical situation. A polygraph the cops give a suspect without a lawyer wouldn't be admissible (based on what I know; not sure about New Mexico etc).
Posted by ThePeaceMaker12
- May 24, 2005, 02:18 AMQuote from: Jeffery on May 24, 2005, 02:16 AM
You get what you pay for.
Well, I am also a member of an organization that is able to hire high priced and high powered attorneys and not at my expense without going into too much detail.
Posted by ThePeaceMaker12
- May 24, 2005, 02:17 AMQuote from: Jeffery on May 24, 2005, 02:07 AM
Dude, don't sweat it. Your attorneys probably told you correct advice. Ask them to clarify if you want; they would be more knowledgable about your circumstances (i.e. the particular laws in your state, whether or not you stipulated before hand etc etc). The responses you've had on this board have all been theoritical to your absolute statement that "Polygraph is (as in never) not admissible in court" and there are limited circumstances where it is.
I don't think that means your lawyers gave you bad info; and it definately doesn't mean you can sue this site for bad info (I can't beliece I even wasted keystrokes addressing this)...
If you want to argue this with your lawyers, I'm sure they'd learn something from it... and charge you for the time.
As a general rule, Polygraphs would not be admissible if they are favorable to the defense (because as part of the stipulation, I doubt charges would have been filed in the first place). If there was no agreement, then the prosecution will play the "Polygraphs shouldn't be admissable because they are inaccurate" card.
So here is a question I have Jeff. If it is to the advantage of a prosecutor to have polygraph results in court....do these results all the sudden become admissable and only admissalbe if helps the prosecution's case?
Posted by Jeffery
- May 24, 2005, 02:16 AMQuote from: ThePeaceMaker12 on May 24, 2005, 02:15 AM
Heh, I have legal insurance. I can call my lawyers at anytime and not be charged an hourly rate. I pay a monthly rate for my legal insurance. I think everybody should have some sort of legal insurance plan.
You get what you pay for.
Posted by ThePeaceMaker12
- May 24, 2005, 02:15 AMQuote from: Jeffery on May 24, 2005, 02:07 AM
Dude, don't sweat it. Your attorneys probably told you correct advice. Ask them to clarify if you want; they would be more knowledgable about your circumstances (i.e. the particular laws in your state, whether or not you stipulated before hand etc etc). The responses you've had on this board have all been theoritical to your absolute statement that "Polygraph is (as in never) not admissible in court" and there are limited circumstances where it is.
I don't think that means your lawyers gave you bad info; and it definately doesn't mean you can sue this site for bad info (I can't beliece I even wasted keystrokes addressing this)...
If you want to argue this with your lawyers, I'm sure they'd learn something from it... and charge you for the time.
As a general rule, Polygraphs would not be admissible if they are favorable to the defense (because as part of the stipulation, I doubt charges would have been filed in the first place). If there was no agreement, then the prosecution will play the "Polygraphs shouldn't be admissable because they are inaccurate" card.
Heh, I have legal insurance. I can call my lawyers at anytime and not be charged an hourly rate. I pay a monthly rate for my legal insurance. I think everybody should have some sort of legal insurance plan.
Posted by Jeffery
- May 24, 2005, 02:07 AMQuote from: ThePeaceMaker12 on May 24, 2005, 01:29 AM
Ok so my attorney gave me bad legal advice and I can now sue my attorney right? and what about this web site? Is this web site wrong? Could this web site be opening itself to a lawsuit for allegedly claiming that a polygraph is inadmissable in court. I swear up and down that several attorneys in my state have stated time and time again that the polygraph is not admissable in court because it is inaccurate.
Dude, don't sweat it. Your attorneys probably told you correct advice. Ask them to clarify if you want; they would be more knowledgable about your circumstances (i.e. the particular laws in your state, whether or not you stipulated before hand etc etc). The responses you've had on this board have all been theoritical to your absolute statement that "Polygraph is (as in never) not admissible in court" and there are limited circumstances where it is.
I don't think that means your lawyers gave you bad info; and it definately doesn't mean you can sue this site for bad info (I can't beliece I even wasted keystrokes addressing this)...
If you want to argue this with your lawyers, I'm sure they'd learn something from it... and charge you for the time.
As a general rule, Polygraphs would not be admissible if they are favorable to the defense (because as part of the stipulation, I doubt charges would have been filed in the first place). If there was no agreement, then the prosecution will play the "Polygraphs shouldn't be admissable because they are inaccurate" card.
Posted by ThePeaceMaker12
- May 24, 2005, 01:48 AMAccording to what I am reading from the DOJ website and what my attorneys have told me that polygraph evidence is ruled inadmissable in court according to rule Rule 702 and Rule 403. The Supreme court has ruled against the admissable of polygraph evidence at trial due to "considerable evidence of a lack of general acceptance in the scientific community for use of polygraph evidence where reliability of results is critical, such as in courtroom, fact determinative use."
Posted by ThePeaceMaker12
- May 24, 2005, 01:41 AMI found this court document off the Department of Justices website which says that polygraphs have been ruled inadmissable in court like my attorneys have said:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f8700/8712.pdf#search='Polygraph%20Inadmissible%20in%20Court'
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f8700/8712.pdf#search='Polygraph%20Inadmissible%20in%20Court'
Posted by ThePeaceMaker12
- May 24, 2005, 01:29 AMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on May 24, 2005, 01:27 AMNew Mexico State Supreme Court Rule 11-707 says polygraph is admissable. Hope this helps with the argument about admissibility. Under certain circumstances it is admissable.
11-707. Polygraph examinations.
1. A. Definitions. As used in this rule:
(1) "chart" means the record of bodily reactions by a polygraph instrument that is attached to the human body during a series of questions;
(2) "polygraph examination" means a test using a polygraph instrument which at a minimum simultaneously graphically records on a chart the physiological changes in human respiration, cardiovascular activity, galvanic skin resistance or reflex for the purpose of lie detection;
(3) "polygraph examiner" means any person who is qualified to administer or interpret a polygraph examination; and
(4) "relevant question" means a clear and concise question which refers to specific objective facts directly related to the purpose of the examination and does not allow rationalization in the answer.
B. Minimum qualifications of polygraph examiner. To be qualified as an expert witness on the truthfulness of a witness, a polygraph examiner must have at least the following minimum qualifications:
(1) at least five (5) years' experience in administration or interpretation of polygraph examinations or equivalent academic training;
(2) conducted or reviewed the examination in accordance with the provisions of this rule; and
(3) successfully completed at least twenty (20) hours of continuing education in the field of polygraph examinations during the twelve (12) month period immediately prior to the date of the examination.
C. Admissibility of results. Subject to the provisions of these rules, the opinion of a polygraph examiner may in the discretion of the trial judge be admitted as evidence as to the truthfulness of any person called as a witness if the examination was performed by a person who is qualified as an expert polygraph examiner pursuant to the provisions of this rule and if:
(1) the polygraph examination was conducted in accordance with the provisions of this rule;
(2) the polygraph examination was quantitatively scored in a manner that is generally accepted as reliable by polygraph experts;
(3) prior to conducting the polygraph examination the polygraph examiner was informed as to the examinee's background, health, education and other relevant information;
(4) at least two (2) relevant questions were asked during the examination; and
(5) at least three (3) charts were taken of the examinee.
D. Notice of examination. Any party who intends to use polygraph evidence at trial, shall not less than thirty (30) days before trial or such other time as the district court may direct, serve upon the opposing party a written notice of such party's intention to use such evidence. The following reports shall be served with the notice:
(1) a copy of the polygraph examiner's report, if any;
(2) a copy of each chart;
(3) a copy of the audio or video recording of the pretest interview, actual testing and posttest interview; and
(4) a list of any prior polygraph examinations taken by the examinee in the matter under question, including the names of all persons administering such examinations, the dates and the results of the examinations.
E. Recording of tests. The pretest interview and actual testing shall be recorded in full on an audio or video recording device.
F. Determination of admissibility. The court shall make any determination as to the admissibility of a polygraph examination outside the presence of the jury.
G. Compelled polygraph examinations. No witness shall be compelled to take a polygraph examination over objection. However, for good cause shown, the court may compel the taking of a polygraph examination by a witness who has previously voluntarily taken an examination and has given notice pursuant to Paragraph D that the party intends to use the polygraph examination. If a witness refuses to take a polygraph examination ordered by the court under this paragraph, opinions of other polygraph examiners as to the truthfulness of the witness shall be inadmissible as evidence.
Ok so my attorney gave me bad legal advice and I can now sue my attorney right? and what about this web site? Is this web site wrong? Could this web site be opening itself to a lawsuit for allegedly claiming that a polygraph is inadmissable in court. I swear up and down that several attorneys in my state have stated time and time again that the polygraph is not admissable in court because it is inaccurate.
Posted by ThePeaceMaker12
- May 24, 2005, 01:26 AMQuote from: Brandon Hall on May 24, 2005, 12:10 AM
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, I did not go through a post-test interview. The end of my employment screen was pretty much, thanks for coming...have a good one. The context of my test differed from yours. Your's a criminal matter (specific incident), mine a pre-employment screening (broad based). That's really no matter though. The polygraph decisions are subjective and many times completely incorrect. The other times...flip the coin and get it right.
To continue the discussion regarding admissibility in court: For New Mexico see statute 11-707 C http://nxt.ella.net/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$vid=nm:all
According to the book A Tremor in the Blood: uses and abuses of the lie detector by Dr. David T. Lykken published in 1998, states in which stipulated lie tests are admissible include: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. States that do not allow polygraph decisions into evidence include: Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Keep in mind Brandon that several...not just one...but three to four different attorneys have told me that the polygraph is inadmissable in court. If you are speaking purely technical then it would make no sense for a defense attorney to allow a polygraph in court IF the defense and prosecutor even have that option.
Posted by polyscam
- May 24, 2005, 12:10 AMQuoteMan, I tell you what. Hope you don't have to go through the post test-interview like I did. I was innocent and already told them everything I knew....
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, I did not go through a post-test interview. The end of my employment screen was pretty much, thanks for coming...have a good one. The context of my test differed from yours. Your's a criminal matter (specific incident), mine a pre-employment screening (broad based). That's really no matter though. The polygraph decisions are subjective and many times completely incorrect. The other times...flip the coin and get it right.
To continue the discussion regarding admissibility in court: For New Mexico see statute 11-707 C http://nxt.ella.net/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$vid=nm:all
According to the book A Tremor in the Blood: uses and abuses of the lie detector by Dr. David T. Lykken published in 1998, states in which stipulated lie tests are admissible include: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. States that do not allow polygraph decisions into evidence include: Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.