Post-test interrogation

[Jeffery]

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.

[ThePeaceMaker12]

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.  

[Jeffery]

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.  

[ThePeaceMaker12]

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?

[ThePeaceMaker12]

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.

[Jeffery]

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).

[ThePeaceMaker12]

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.

[polyscam]

ThePeaceMaker12 wrote:

I 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  

[Debora L Gillis]

What 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?

[George W. Maschke]

What 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.