Regarding Polygraphs

[txinvestigator1]

There was a recent AAC thread where it was stated that polygraph results are not admitted as evidence in court.

Polygraphs are not 100% excluded as evidence in federal courts OR courts martial. There is much case law, and they are not always permitted. However, there is no general prohibition.

In 2007, polygraph eividence was admitted in state courts of 19 states.

I won't argue the scientific validity of polygraphs, but I did want to point out this common mistake of fact.

[retdetsgt]

Too bad. I would hate to think someone went to jail or walked free based on something that slipshod.

I'd never take one if the results had any consequences any way or the other.

I think that most of the time they are admitted, it has to be agreed upon by all parties involved.

[Kimble]

I think that most of the time they are admitted, it has to be agreed upon by all parties involved.

Never seen it admitted in a federal case I've investigated, but have in military courts-martial, and it's exactly under the conditions listed above (i.e. defense and prosecution agree it be admitted).

[mcsap]

We can use them to exonerate but never to convict.

[retdetsgt]

We can use them to exonerate but never to convict.

I don't use them to exonerate either. As I keep saying, a sociopath or psychopath can pass one every time because they have no conscience about lying. I've gotten convictions on rapists and even one murderer who passed it in flying colors.

They are merely a conversation beginner.

[txinvestigator1]

As I wrote, ya'll can hash out the effectiveness. I am simply addressing the statement, wrongly made over and over, that they are not admissable in court.

;)

[1depd]

Thanks for the info. I did not know they were allowing them into court.

At first glance it seems to be an academic discussion, if what everyone has said is accurate. I don't think a lawyer will agree to something that would hurt their case. I also don't think a lawyer would agree to something before knowing the outcome. I wouldn't think a lawyer would agree to allowing it in court before the test, and I seriously doubt both lawyers would agree after the test.

[txinvestigator1]

Thanks for the info. I did not know they were allowing them into court.

At first glance it seems to be an academic discussion, if what everyone has said is accurate. I don't think a lawyer will agree to something that would hurt their case. I also don't think a lawyer would agree to something before knowing the outcome. I wouldn't think a lawyer would agree to allowing it in court before the test, and I seriously doubt both lawyers would agree after the test.

In fact, It HAS been accepted in court. There are several restrictions each court has placed, bit there is NO universal ban on polygraphs in court. There is no constitutional issue, no law restricting its use.

[retdetsgt]

In fact, It HAS been accepted in court. There are several restrictions each court has placed, bit there is NO universal ban on polygraphs in court. There is no constitutional issue, no law restricting its use.

There's no constitutional ban against psychics either......

[1depd]

In fact, It HAS been accepted in court. There are several restrictions each court has placed, bit there is NO universal ban on polygraphs in court. There is no constitutional issue, no law restricting its use.

That's what you said that in the first post.