The case of Jeremy Breedlove is complicated, but the only relevant part here is his polygraph. Jeremy's attorney and the prosecutor agreed that the results of his polygraph would be admissable at trial, unless the results were "inconclusive".
Jeremy was given a polygraph by the Ohio State Police on June 19th. On July 12th, the OSP gave this opinion:
"After a careful interpretation of Jeremy Breedlove's polygraph tracings, it is my opinion that no deception was indicated on his answers to the pertinent questions,".
When Jeremy's attorney asked the OSP for a copy of the videotape of the test in preparation for trial, the results magically changed. The OSP claimed on August 5th that the results were "inconclusive", and went so far as to say that Jeremy had manipulated the results by "controlling his breathing". So much for that "careful" interpretation.
So if you're offered a polygraph in a criminal investigation, don't bet the farm on an NDI result. Next month the results may change.
Read the whole story here.
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/news/stories/20030825/localnews/125369.html
I can't believe a defense attorney would agree to let a client's polygraph results be admissible under those circumstances. If the client failed, he would have been totally f**ked.
On the other hand, the prosecutor must not have had much of a case whereby the polygraph results would be the determining factor whether or not a case would be prosecuted.