Validity of Polygraph Examinations

Harry Foster - Fall 2001 - Evidence

The Validity of Polygraph Examinations

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II.History

III. Validity in Federal Jurisdictions

IV. Validity in State Jurisdictions

V. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act

VI. Secondary Sources

VII. Useful Links

VIII. About the Author

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. Introduction (return to table of contents)

Used as either a shield to acquit the innocent or a sword to prosecute the guilty the use of the polygraph has been a source of legal controversy ever since its primitive forerunner the systolic blood pressure deception test sparked the infamous Frye case that set the original standard for the admission of scientific evidence into the courtroom. Despite the last 75 years of scientific triumphs the modern polygraph machine is no less controversial than the systolic blood pressure deception test was in 1923.

The polygraph machine itself is well known to the public as it has made appearances in motion pictures such as Meet the Parents and countless appearances and references in television courtroom dramas. Despite its Hollywood image the polygraph has been less well accepted in the real courtroom. While no jurisdiction has a per se rule admitting the results of a polygraph examination the polygraph is allowed in many jurisdictions where both parties have stipulated the results are admissible and in limited circumstances to give a witness credibility or for impeachment purposes.

While the author conducted complete and thorough research to gather the information contained on this website it is by no means the definitive source on the subject. Rather the information provided by the author is a quick guide and introduction to polygraph examinations and their admissibility in a court of law. Therefore the information contained within this website should not be relied upon until it is independently verified and it is known to be true and correct.

II. History (return to table of contents)

The term "polygraph" literally means "many writings." The name refers to the manner in which selected physiological activities are simultaneously recorded. Polygraph examiners may use conventional instruments sometimes referred to as analog instruments or computerized polygraph instruments. It is important to understand what a polygraph examination entails. A polygraph instrument will collect physiological data from at least three systems in the human body. Convoluted rubber tubes that are placed over the examinee's chest and abdominal area will record respiratory activity. Two small metal plates attached to the fingers will record sweat gland activity and a blood pressure cuff or similar device will record cardiovascular activity. A typical polygraph examination will include a period referred to as a pre-test a chart collection phase and a test data analysis phase. In the pre-test the polygraph examiner will complete required paperwork and talk with the examinee about the test. During this period the examiner will discuss the questions to be asked and familiarize the examinee with the testing procedure. During the chart collection phase the examiner will administer and collect a number of polygraph charts. Following this the examiner will analyze the charts and render an opinion as to the truthfulness of the person taking the test. The examiner when appropriate will offer the examinee an opportunity to explain physiological responses in relation to one or more questions asked during the test.

[Source: Polygraph Issues & Answers FAQ (2001) at http://www.polygraph.org/apa5.htm#what.]

Prior to 1993 the admissibility of scientific evidence in federal criminal trials was governed by the rule of Frye v United States (1923 App DC) 54 App DC 46 293 F 1013 34 ALR 145 which held generally that such evidence was admissible only if the scientific principle or discovery from which a deduction was made was sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the scientific field to which it belonged. Frye specifically concerned the admissibility of a systolic blood pressure deception test a crude precursor of modern polygraph or "lie detector" tests and the court in Frye concluded that the test had not yet gained sufficient standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities to justify its admission. So long as the Frye general-acceptance test remained law the Frye court's judgment with respect to lie detector tests remained dominant if not completely unchallenged with many federal courts treating polygraph test results as inadmissible per se unless both parties stipulated to their use as evidence.

In Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharms. (1993) 509 US 579 125 L Ed 2d 469 113 S Ct 2786 93 CDOS 4825 93 Daily Journal DAR 8148 27 USPQ2d 1200 CCH Prod Liab Rep § 13494 37 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1 23 ELR 20979 7 FLW Fed S 632 however the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Frye test had been superseded by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence and particularly by Rule 702 Federal Rules of Evidence which allows the introduction of scientific technical or other specialized knowledge by a qualified expert witness if such knowledge "will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." The requirement of general acceptance as an absolute prerequisite to admissibility the Supreme Court found was inconsistent with the liberal thrust of the Rules and their relaxation of traditional barriers to opinion testimony. Instead the Supreme Court held that whether a scientific theory or technique was generally accepted in the relevant scientific community was only one of several factors for courts to weigh in determining whether that theory or technique was sufficiently reliable and relevant to "assist the trier of fact with other factors including, but not limited to, (1) whether the theory or technique could be, and had been, tested; (2) whether the theory or technique had been subjected to peer review and publication; and (3) the known or potential rate of error. If a theory or technique survived this flexible" inquiry under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and met the requirements of other applicable rules the Supreme Court concluded the theory or technique could then be admitted into evidence.

[Source John E. Theuman Annotation Admissibility in Federal Criminal Case of Results Of Polygraph (Lie Detector) Test--Post-Daubert Cases 140 A.L.R. Fed. 525 (1997)]

Photographs and Information on Various Polygraph Machines

http://www.polygraphsales.com/History.htm

 

III. Validity in Federal Jurisdictions (return to table of contents)

Supreme Court Cases

United States v. Scheffer 523 U.S. 303 (1998).

"On certiorari the United States Supreme Court held that per se rule against admission of polygraph evidence in court martial proceedings did not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights of accused to present a defense."

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

"Held that Frye had been superseded by the Federal Rules of Evidence and that expert testimony could be admitted if the district court deemed it both relevant and reliable."

1st Circuit Cases

United States v. Black 831 F. Supp. 120 (1^st Cir 1993).

"Defendant's admissions made to polygraph examiners were admissible where he signed a waiver of his right against self-incrimination."

2nd Circuit Cases

The 2nd Circuit has not decided case post Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

3rd Circuit Cases

The 3rd Circuit has not decided case post Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

4th Circuit Cases

United States v. Sanchez 118 F.3d. 192 (4^th Cir. 1997).

"not decided whether polygraphy has reached a sufficient state of reliability to be admissible."

U.S. v. Jones 210 F.3d 363 (4^th Cir. 2000).

"The results of a polygraph test are generally not admissible."

5th Circuit Cases

U.S. v. Posado 57 F.3d 428 (5^th Cir. 1995).

"To iterate we do not now hold that polygraph examinations are scientifically valid or that they will always assist the trier of fact in this or any other individual case. We merely remove the obstacle of the per se rule against admissibility which was based on antiquated concepts about the technical ability of the polygraph and legal precepts that have been expressly overruled by the Supreme Court."

6th Circuit Cases

Hinkle v. Randle 2001 WL 1194895 (6^th Cir. 2001).

"polygraphs are not admissible in Ohio because their reliability has never been scientifically established to the satisfaction of the courts"

United States v. Thomas 167 F.3d 299 (6^th Cir. 1999).

"polygraph evidence obtained by one party is almost never admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because of the danger of unfair prejudice"

7th Circuit Cases

United States v. Dillard 43 F.3d 299 (7^th Cir. 1994).

"The admissibility of polygraph evidence is a matter within the discretion of the district court."

8th Circuit Cases

United States v. Williams 95 F.3d 723 (8^th Cir. 1996).

"Polygraph test results may be admissible when the indices of reliability are present."

U.S. v. Waters 194 F.3d 926 (8^th Cir. 1999).

"Because the reliability of any polygraph exam must be assessed in a particularized inquiry a Daubert hearing will generally be required to determine admissibility."

9th Circuit Cases

U.S. v. Campos 217 F.3d 707 (9^th Cir. 2000).

"Polygraph evidence relating to collateral issues is potentially admissible."

U.S. v. Benavidez-Benavidez 217 F.3d 720 (9^th Cir. 2000).

"unstipulated polygraph testimony is potentially admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence"

10th Circuit Cases

U.S. v. Call 129 F.3d 1402 (10^th Cir. 1997).

"Like the Fifth and Ninth Circuits we cannot discern a reason to treat polygraph evidence differently than other scientific evidence under Rule 702. Daubert itself contains no support for such an exception. Consequently polygraph examinations like all other scientific evidence must be subjected to the Rule 702 analysis set forth in Daubert."

11th Circuit Cases

U.S. v. Gilliard 133 F.3d 809 (11^th Cir. 1998).

(1) exclusion of polygraph evidence under Daubert standard of admissibility was not abuse of discretion and

(2) even if evidence was admissible scientific evidence it was properly excluded as more prejudicial than probative.

DC Circuit

The DC Circuit has not decided case post Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

IV. Validity in State Jurisdictions (return to table of contents)

Alabama

Dorsey v. State 2001 WL 564212 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001).

"Polygraph evidence is not admissible in a criminal proceeding."

Alaska

Woodard v. State 1998 WL 849246 (Alaska App. 1998).

"Because the scientific underpinnings of polygraph testing have not gained general acceptance within the relevant scientific community polygraph results are not admissible in Alaska to prove that a witness is telling the truth or is lying"

Arkansas

Ramaker v. State 46 S.W.3d 519 (Ark. 2001).

"the results of a polygraph exam "shall be inadmissible in all courts in this State." The only exception to this rule occurs when both parties stipulate to the admissibility of the polygraph results in writing"

Arizona

State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 (Ariz. 2001).

"we are still left with the issue of the admissibility of polygraph evidence. We have long held it to be inadmissible under the Frye standard."

California

Rufo v. Simpson 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2001).

"In the absence of a stipulation between the parties the results of a polygraph examination as well as the fact of an offer to take a refusal to *603 take or the taking of a polygraph examination are inadmissible as evidence in California criminal and civil proceedings."

Colorado

People v. District Court In and For First Judicial Dist. Jefferson County Colo. 785 P.2d 141 (Colo. 1990).

"We held in People v. Anderson 637 P.2d 354 362 (Colo.1981) that evidence of polygraph results is per se inadmissible in a criminal trial."

Connecticut

State v. Porter 698 A.2d 739 (Conn. 1997).

"on the basis of our own independent examination of the extensive literature and case law regarding polygraph evidence that polygraph evidence should remain per se inadmissible in Connecticut trials"

Delaware

Capano v. State 2001 WL 980939 (Del.Supr. 2001).

"The holding in Whalen preserves the rule prohibiting "the use of the results of a polygraph test without prior agreement of the parties."

District of Columbia

Peyton v. U.S. 709 A.2d 65 (D.C. 1998).

"In this jurisdiction polygraph tests are not admissible evidence because the science hasn't developed enough to be sufficiently sound to be reliable evidence"

Florida

Schmidt v. Hunter 788 So.2d 322 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 2001).

"polygraph exam results are not admissible"

Georgia

Robertson v. State 493 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. 1997).

"Absent a stipulation by both parties polygraph results are not admissible."

Hawaii

State v. Okumura 894 P.2d 80 (Hawai'i 1995).

"According to well- established precedent in this jurisdiction polygraph results are not admissible at trial whether offered by the prosecution or the defense"

Idaho

State v. Grube 883 P.2d 1069 (Idaho 1994).

"General rule is that polygraph examination is not admissible evidence absent stipulation by both parties even if examination is exculpatory."

Illinois

People v. Jackson 747 N.E.2d 1001 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 2001).

"However our supreme court has held that polygraph evidence is admissible in one limited circumstance. It may be used to rebut a claim that an incriminating statement was improperly obtained."

Indiana

Jackson v. State 735 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2000).

"Absent a waiver or stipulation by the parties the results of polygraph examinations administered to criminal defendants are not admissible."

Iowa

State v. Countryman 573 N.W.2d 265 (Iowa 1998).

"Inadmissibility in the absence of a stipulation is grounded on the fact that polygraph tests are not established or shown to be reliable."

Kansas

State v. Shively 999 P.2d 952 (Kan. 2000).

"Absent a stipulation of the parties the results of a polygraph examination are too unreliable to be admissible in evidence at a trial notwithstanding claimed advances in the computerization of polygraph technology and scoring; the prohibition remains based on the lack of general acceptance in the relevant scientific community the unreliability of the results in accurately measuring truthfulness or deceptiveness and the unique role of the jury as the truthfinder in court."

Kentucky

Perry v. Com. ex rel. Kessinger 652 S.W.2d 655 (Ky. 1983).

"Results of polygraph or lie detector test are not admissible in evidence."

Louisiana

State v. Cosey 779 So.2d 675 (La. 2000).

"Polygraph evidence is prohibited because it invites a probable inference by the jury that the witness passed the polygraph examination and therefore is testifying truthfully."

Maine

State v. Patterson 651 A.2d 362 (Me. 1994).

"polygraph test results are inadmissible"

Maryland

Malpas v. State 695 A.2d 588 (Md.App. 1997).

"The Court of Special Appeals held it was reversible error for the lower court to rely on the results of the defendant's polygraph test even though all the parties had stipulated to the result. It appears to the Court that the results of the polygraph and illegal intercept are analogous in that the legislature has made a very strong statement they are not in any way admissible."

Massachusetts

Com. v. Donahue 723 N.E.2d 25 (Mass. 2000).

"Polygraph evidence is not ordinarily admissible in criminal trials."

Michigan

People v. Fisher 2001 WL 865313 (Mich.App. 2001).

"Polygraph results are not admissible at trial because the degree of scientific acceptance does not allow for admission and the trier of fact may give disproportionate weight to the results."

Minnesota

State v. Opsahl 513 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. 1994).

"Results of polygraph tests as well as evidence that defendant took or refused to take such a test are not admissible in either criminal or civil trials."

Mississippi

McClendon v. State 748 So.2d 814 (Miss.App. 1999).

"Neither the fact of the taking of a polygraph examination nor the results of such an examination are admissible into evidence."

Missouri

A.B.C. v. C.L.C. 968 S.W.2d 214 (Mo.App. S.D. 1998).

"Polygraph examinations and their results are not admissible in civil litigation proceedings even if the parties stipulate to their admission."

State v. Hall 955 S.W.2d 198 (Mo. 1997).

"Results of polygraph tests are not admissible evidence."

Montana

State v. Anderson 977 P.2d 315 (Mont. 1999).

"In addition to precluding the direct introduction of the results of a polygraph test any evidence which would otherwise be admissible may be rendered inadmissible where a polygraph is used in the production of or for the purpose of influencing the outcome of such evidence."

Nebraska

Mathes v. City of Omaha 576 N.W.2d 181 (Neb. 1998).

"We discern no reason for making admissible in administrative hearings the results of polygraph examinations which are not admissible in criminal cases"

Nevada

Kazalyn v. State 825 P.2d 578 (Nev. 1992).

"polygraph evidence in any form (whether it be the defendant's offer or refusal to take a polygraph examination or results of the examination) is not admissible unless the parties have stipulated to its admission in writing."

New Hampshire

State v. Ober 493 A.2d 493 (N.H. 1985).

"We have consistently held that the results of polygraph tests are not admissible as evidence of guilt or innocence in criminal trials."

New Jersey

State v. Sloan 545 A.2d 230 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1988).

"admissibility of a stipulated lie-detector test is based on judicial recognition of increased acceptance of the test's reliability and on the agreement between the parties that the test is reliable"

New Mexico

State v. Alberico 861 P.2d 233 (N.M.App. 1991).

"Even in this jurisdiction which is one of the few to permit polygraph evidence see SCRA 1986 11-707 such evidence is admissible under our rules of evidence only because a showing was made to the supreme court rules committee that polygraph techniques can be highly reliable in determining whether a person is lying."

New York

Water Wheel Inn Inc. v. Exchange Ins. Co. 690 N.Y.S.2d 622 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1999).

"Although polygraph evidence may be admissible under certain circumstances in administrative proceedings where compliance with the rules of evidence is not required the reliability of polygraph testing has not been demonstrated with sufficient certainty to render such test results admissible in judicial proceedings."

North Carolina

State v. Lytch 544 S.E.2d 570 (N.C.App. 2001).

"polygraph evidence is [not] admissible in any trial in North Carolina"

North Dakota

State v. Weatherspoon 583 N.W.2d 391 (N.D. 1998).

"this court held that the results of a polygraph examination are not admissible in a criminal trial. However where the prosecution and defense have stipulated to the admissibility of polygraph test results for the purposes of a motion for new trial we have held that the court must consider the results in determining the merits of the motion."

Ohio

State v. Wobbler 2001 WL 1338951 (Ohio App. 3 Dist. 2001).

"In Ohio the results of a polygraph examination are admissible as evidence in a criminal trial for purposes of corroboration or impeachment only when the prosecution and defense stipulate to their admissibility"

Oklahoma

Thornburg v. State 985 P.2d 1234 (Okla.Crim.App. 1999).

"Neither results of polygraph tests nor evidence that witness has taken polygraph test are admissible for any purpose."

Oregon

Matter of Marriage of Fromdahl 840 P.2d 683 (Or. 1992).

"polygraph evidence is never admissible in an Oregon court"

Pennsylvania

Com. v. Scuilli 621 A.2d 620 (Pa.Super. 1993).

"The results of a polygraph test are not admissible for any purpose in a court of law"

Rhode Island

State v. Henshaw 557 A.2d 1204 (R.I. 1989).

"polygraph tests are not admissible at trial for any purpose"

South Carolina

In re Robert R. 531 S.E.2d 301 (S.C.App. 2000).

"On review the supreme court stated [t]his Court has consistently held the results of polygraph examinations are generally not admissible because the reliability of the tests is questionable.

South Dakota

State v. Satter 543 N.W.2d 249 (S.D. 1996).

"The Supreme Court has adopted the rule that results of a polygraph examination taken upon stipulation are admissible."

Tennessee

State v. Williams 2000 WL 1763683 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2000).

"It has long been established in Tennessee that the results of a polygraph examination are not admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution."

Texas

Ramirez v. State 2001 WL 435073 (Tex.App. 2001).

"We recognize the rule that the existence and result of a polygraph test is not admissible."

Utah

State v. Brown 948 P.2d 337 (Utah 1997).

"a stipulation between the parties is the only way polygraph evidence may be admitted"

Vermont

State v. Hamlin 499 A.2d 45 (Vt. 1985).

"We find no error in the trial court's decision not to admit the results of the polygraph test. We leave open the broader questions concerning the proper standard for disposing of such issues--the scientific reliability of polygraph tests the qualifications of the examiner and the wide range of variables produced by different subjects. We will address these issues when we have a proper record from below noting only that given the present "state of the art virtually all of the courts which have considered the question have declined to admit the results of polygraph examinations.

Virginia

Bennett v. Com. 511 S.E.2d 439 (Va.App. 1999).

"Because a polygraph examination has no proper evidentiary use neither the results of a polygraph nor evidence of a person's willingness or unwillingness to submit to a polygraph is admissible in court."

Washington

State v. Clark 24 P.3d 1006 (Wash. 2001).

"Although polygraph results are not admissible at trial unless stringent conditions have been met such evidence may be considered in a magistrate's determination of probable cause to issue search warrant."

State v. Renfro 639 P.2d 737 (Wash. 1982).

"Where defendant defendant's counsel and prosecution signed stipulation as to admissibility of results of polygraph examination which defendant had volunteered to take and procedural safeguards in conduct of examination and in admitting results into evidence were met stipulation would be enforced and results of examination were admissible"

West Virginia

Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Turgeon 2000 WL 1809212 (W.Va. 2000).

"under the law of the State of West Virginia polygraph evidence is not admissible and should not be referred to by any parties in this case."

Wisconsin

Estate of Neumann ex rel. Rodli v. Neumann 626 N.W.2d 821 (Wis.App. 2001).

"this court held that although a polygraph test result might itself be inadmissible an offer to take a polygraph test is relevant to an assessment of the offeror's credibility and may be admissible for that purpose."

Wyoming

Haselhuhn v. State 727 P.2d 280 (Wyo. 1986).

"In the absence of a stipulation for admission a conviction must be reversed when the results of a polygraph are revealed to the jury."

 

 

V. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act (return to table of contents)

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) applies to most private employers. Federal state and local governments are not covered by the law.

The EPPA prohibits most private employers from using lie detector tests either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment. Employers are generally prohibited from requiring or requesting any employee or job applicant to take a lie detector test and from discharging disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant for refusing to take a test or for exercising other rights under the Act. Employers may not use or inquire about the results of a lie detector test or discharge or discriminate against an employee or job applicant on the basis of the results of a test or for filing a complaint or for participating in a proceeding under the Act. Subject to restrictions the Act permits polygraph (a type of lie detector) tests to be administered to certain job applicants of security service firms (armored car alarm and guard) and of pharmaceutical manufacturers distributors and dispensers. Subject to restrictions the Act also permits polygraph testing of certain employees of private firms who are reasonably suspected of involvement in a workplace incident (theft embezzlement etc.) that resulted in specific economic loss or injury to the employer. Where polygraph examinations are permitted they are subject to strict standards concerning the conduct of the test including the pretest testing and post-testing phases. An examiner must also be licensed and bonded or have professional liability coverage. The Act strictly limits the disclosure of information obtained during a polygraph test.

[Source: Department of Labor Small Business Handbook- Basic Provisions/Requirements (2001) at http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/handbook/eppa.htm]

Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 USC §2001 et seq.; 29 CFR 801)

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/ch22.html

Department of Labor EPPA Handbook

http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/handbook/eppa.htm

Office of Compliance Website

http://www.compliance.gov/poly.html

VI. Secondary Sources (return to table of contents)

Books on Polygraph Issues

 

Stan Abrams. The complete polygraph handbook Lexington Books Lexington Mass. (1989).(Call Number: HV8078 .A227 1989)

Robert J. Ferguson and Allan L. Miller. The polygraph in court Thomas Springfield Ill. (1973). (Call Number: KF9666 .F474)

Robert J. Ferguson and Allan L. Miller. Polygraph for the defense Thomas Springfield Ill. (1974). (Call Number: KF9666 .F47)

 

Recent ALR Articles on Polygraph Issues

 

Joseph M. Pellicciotti Annotation Construction and Application of Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 2001 ET SEQ.) 154 A.L.R. Fed. 315 (1999). (Call Number: KF132. - A524)

John E. Theuman Annotation Admissibility in Federal Criminal Case of Results Of Polygraph (Lie Detector) Test--Post-Daubert Cases 140 A.L.R. Fed. 525 (1997). (Call Number: KF132. - A524)

 

Recent Journals and Law Review Articles on Polygraph Issues

 

Vincent A. Citro PLAYING "PIN THE TAIL ON THE TRUTH" IN THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT: WHY POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED IN FEDERAL COURTS 30 Stetson L. Rev. 715 (2000).

Shauna Fleming Askins UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER: AN ANOMALY IN THE MILITARY OR A RETURN TO THE PER SE BAN OF POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE? 37 Hous. L. Rev. 175 (2000).

Michael D. Morgan LYING IN THE HEARTLAND: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS REGARDING POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE IN OHIO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 26 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 89 (2000).

Robin D. Barovick BETWEEN ROCK AND A HARD PLACE: POLYGRAPH PREJUDICE PERSISTS AFTER SCHEFFER 47 Buff. L. Rev. 1533 (1999).

George M. Dery III MOUSE HUNTING WITH AN ELEPHANT GUN: THE SUPREME COURT'S OVERKILL IN UPHOLDING A CATEGORICAL REJECTION TO POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE IN UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER 26 Am. J. Crim. L. 227 (1999).

Leonard Saxe and Gershon Ben-Shakhar ADMISSIBILITY OF POLYGRAPH TESTS THE APPLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS POST-DAUBERT 5 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 203 (1999).

David Gallai POLIGRAPH EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL COURTS: SHOULD IT BE ADMISSIBLE? 36 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 87 (1999).

Jason C. Parkin LIE DETECTORS: AN EXPANDED DEFINITION 30 McGeorge L. Rev. 729 (1999).

Donald A. Dripps POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE AFTER UNITED STATES v. SCHEFFER 34-JUN Trial 75 (June 1998).

Paul C. Giannelli POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE: POST-DAUBERT 49 Hastings L.J. 895 (1998).

Timothy M. Hughes UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER: WHAT IS LEFT OF THE POLYGRAPH IN CRIMINAL TRIALS? 10 St. Thomas L. Rev. 653 (1998).

Stephen P. Bell Jr. and T. Michael Guiffre EXCULPATORY POLYGRAPHS IN THE COURTROOM 28 Cumb. L. Rev. 77 (1998).

Scott C. Best EVIDENCE ADMISSIBILITY OF POLYGRAPH TESTS 21 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 407 (1997).

Timothy B. Henseler A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE IN THE WAKE OF DAUBERT: THE LIE DETECTOR FAILS THE TEST 46 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1247 (1997).

Thomas E. Zehnle POLYGRAPH ADMISSIBILITY IN THE POST-DAUBERT ERA 12-SUM Crim. Just. 10 (1997).

VII. Useful Links (return to table of contents)

The American Polygraph Association

http://www.polygraph.org/

How to Beat a Polygraph

http://www.polygraph.com/

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act Homepage

http://www.admpoly.com/eppahome.htm

DECKER INSTRUMENT Polygraph Service Sales & Rentals

http://www.polygraphsales.com/

 

 

 

 

 

VIII. About the Author (return to table of contents)

This website was constructed by Harry Foster a third year law student at Georgia State University College of Law in Atlanta Georgia. It was undertaken as a project for the Advanced Legal Research Class taught by Professor Nancy Johnson. I would like to thank Professor Johnson the other members of my class and especially Terrance Manion for their help support and encouragement.

To learn more about Georgia State University College of Law please visit our website. http://law.gsu.edu/