no
Although they can be used in conducting criminal investigaions, the results of polygraphs cannot normally be entered into evidence in court as other types of "evidence" might be.1980 - United States v. RobertsThe prosecutor had told the grand jury unequivocally that polygraph results were inadmissible in a court of law and the court called her on the carpet and stated that her statememnt was false and said "The Court dissapproves of the prosecutor's bold statement to the Grand Jury that polygraph evidence is inadmissible at trial. Such statements are absolutely untrue. The Ninth Circuit has held that polygraph evidence is admissible within the trial court's discretion."As current law stands it is up to the trial judge as to how he or she will handle any motion to admit polygraph evidence.However Legally in all 50 States of the US you can refuse to submit to a polygraph test and the fact that you refused the test can't be used against youin a court of law..But if you take the test it could be used against you if the trial judge decides to allow it.If a grand jury is reviewing the evidence to see if sufficient data exists to proceed with a trial they can use the results of a polygraph test in their recommendation to no-bill or indict. In my experience the accused should always appear before the grand jury and/or take a polygraph. Passing a polygraph will almost always get a no-bill. Failing it or failing to take one will usually result in an indictment.
No, the results of polygraph tests are inadmissible in court as evidence.Added: They can, however, be used by law enforcement as an aid to investigation.
The first polygraph was invented in 1917 and was used for counterintelligence work during World War I. In 1938, the FBI began using polygraph examinations. The first polygraph to be used in a courtroom as evidence was on Dr. Francis Sweeney; a chief suspect in the Cleveland torso murders. He failed the polygraph test but was released later due to lack of evidence.
The polygraph test is not "proof-positive". The polygraph test is not completely unreliable.
US supream court deemed the "Lie detector" test inadmissable as evidence because it isn't an exact science. It is unreliable and can false-test positive even when no one is connected to it.
Yes and no. If your lying about a murder you can but if your lying about what color socks your whereing you cant.
polygraphs aren't scientifically proven to be accurate so aren't accepted as evidence in court
A polygraphy doesn't actually say "truth" or "lie".. it records vital signs, and the assessor makes a determination based on the results of the vital sign readings vs. typical human bodily reactions to telling lies. It's not a guaranteed method by any means, and that's why polygraphy results aren't eligible to be submitted as evidence in court.
In most states, no. However, in some states they are allowed under certain circumstances. It's typically not within the trial judge's discretion when to and not to admit this evidence. Most states' appellate/supreme courts have set out rules in case law for when polygraph is admissible. For example, in several states, a polygraph is admissible in a criminal case when it is first introduced by the defendant, but the state may not be the first to introduce it. However, if the defendant introduces a polygraph test, the state may rebut that evidence with a conflicting exam.
A polygraph is used to help detect if someone is lying.
AHH a lie detector ANSWER by Engl1sh: A perfessional typically uses the term 'polygraph' test.