Are Polygraph (Lie Detector) Tests Admissible in Court?
In this blog, we will debunk one of the oldest and most debated myths surrounding polygraph testing or lie detector tests—their admissibility in courts. People often hear others say, 'Why would you even think about taking a lie detector test if it can't be used in court?' or 'A lie detector is not admissible in court, don't waste your time.' To those who say this, you are misinformed or relying on outdated information from the early 20s to the 80s. This discrepancy can create doubts about whether individuals should proceed with taking a polygraph test, especially when they hear conflicting information about its admissibility. While some courts indeed will not accept polygraph tests when brought up by attorneys or individuals, or they may stipulate the test for a defendant, the majority of state courts do allow lie detector tests on a limited basis. In this blog, we'll delve into the factors that determine the admissibility of lie detector tests in legal proceedings.
As a state-licensed advanced board-certified polygraph examiner with over 22 years of experience and global recognition, I will debunk these claims and put them to rest. I understand that not everyone reading this blog will be convinced, and that's not my intention. This blog serves as an informational resource, empowering individuals to make informed decisions based on their careful knowledge and circumstances. My goal here is to assist those who genuinely seek more information to empower themselves in important matters regarding polygraph tests and their admissibility in legal settings.
Important Notes:
In this blog, you will not receive legal advice or guidance on specific legal matters. The polygraph examiner writing this has over 30 years of experience in criminal justice as an investigator and has testified in numerous courts on various criminal and civil investigation issues, including polygraph testing and evidence analysis. The information provided is solely for educational purposes and is not intended for legal application to your individual case. This examiner is not a law school graduate or a licensed attorney in any state. Readers seeking legal advice should always consult a licensed, experienced attorney in their area.
Throughout this blog, you may notice the terms "polygraph" and "lie detector" used interchangeably. They have the same meaning. While "polygraph testing" or "polygraph examination" are more modern terms, "lie detector" is the term most people are familiar with. Therefore, don't be confused by their interchangeable usage.
The Admissibility of Polygraph Tests in State Courts
Let's start by establishing some factual information. Approximately 25 states accept polygraph testing as evidence, either based on both parties stipulating to take the examination or on a limited basis. This fact alone debunks the old myth that polygraphs can’t be used in court.
The 25 states that accept polygraph tests include:
Alaska
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
These 25 states, however, impose strict rules and regulations before admitting any polygraph or lie detector test information as evidence. They require the administering polygraph examiner to hold a state license and possess a minimum of five years of experience. The examiner must demonstrate a clear understanding and articulation of the polygraph examination process without hesitation or issues, establishing full qualification as an expert in the field. Only when these qualifications are met can the administered polygraph test be considered admissible evidence in court. It's important to note that some states outright prohibit the use of polygraph testing altogether, a topic we'll discuss further.
Furthermore, lie detector tests are used in military hearings that fall outside court-martial hearings. These hearings, governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), address non-serious offenses such as failing a urinalysis, disobeying a lawful order, military discharge hearings, and other violations that are non-serious offenses that carry no confinement.
Polygraph Test Admissibility in Federal Courts
United States Supreme Court Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion (Case 707), addressed the admissibility of polygraph testing concerning U.S. military evidence. Despite Court Marshals not allowing their use, Justice Stevens supported the admissibility of polygraphs under specific circumstances.
This is what Justice Stevens wrote:
“There is no question that in recent years polygraph testing has gained increasingly widespread acceptance as a useful and reliable scientific tool. Because of the advances that have been achieved in the field which have led to the greater use of polygraph examination, coupled with a lack of evidence that juries are unduly swayed by polygraph evidence, we agree with those courts which have found that a per se rule disallowing polygraph evidence is no longer warranted… Thus, we believe the best approach in this area is one which balances the need to admit all relevant and reliable evidence against the danger that the admission of the evidence for a given purpose will be unfairly prejudicial." United States v. Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529, 1535 (CA11 1989). “[W]e 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." United States v. Posado, 57 F.3d 428, 434 (CA5 1995).
One study compared the accuracy of fingerprinting, handwriting analysis, polygraph tests, and eyewitness identification. The study consisted of 80 volunteers divided into 20 groups of 4. Fingerprints and handwriting samples were taken from all of the participants. In each group of four, one person was randomly assigned the role of “perpetrator." The perpetrator was instructed to take an envelope to a building doorkeeper (who knew that he would later need to identify the perpetrator), sign a receipt, and pick up a package. After the “crime," all participants were given a polygraph examination. The fingerprinting expert (comparing the original fingerprints with those on the envelope), the handwriting expert (comparing the original samples with the signed receipt), and the polygrapher (analyzing the tests) sought to identify the perpetrator of each group. In addition, two days after the “crime," the doorkeeper was asked to pick the picture of the perpetrator out of a set of four pictures.
The results of the study demonstrate that polygraph evidence compares favorably with other types of evidence. Excluding “inconclusive" results from each test, the fingerprinting expert resolved 100% of the cases correctly, the polygrapher resolved 95% of the cases correctly, the handwriting expert resolved 94% of the cases correctly, and the eyewitness resolved only 64% of the cases correctly. Interestingly, when “inconclusive" results were included, the polygraph test was more accurate than any of the other methods: The polygrapher resolved 90% of the cases correctly, compared with 85% for the handwriting expert, 35% for the eyewitness, and 20% for the fingerprinting expert. Widacki & Horvath, An Experimental Investigation of the Relative Validity and Utility of the Polygraph Technique and Three Other Common Methods of Criminal Identification, 23 J. Forensic Sciences 596, 596—600 (1978); see also Honts & Perry 365.
It has been suggested that if exculpatory polygraph evidence may be adduced by the defendant, the prosecutor should also be allowed to introduce inculpatory test results. That conclusion would not be dictated by a holding that vindicates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to summon witnesses. Moreover, as noted above, studies indicate that exculpatory polygraphs are more reliable than inculpatory ones. See n. 22, supra. In any event, a concern about possible future legal developments is surely not implicated by the narrow issue presented by the holding of the Court of Military Appeals in this case. Even if it were, I can see nothing fundamentally unfair about permitting the results of a test taken pursuant to stipulation being admitted into evidence to prove consciousness of guilt as well as consciousness of innocence.”
Here is what the Texas Supreme Court stated regarding polygraph testing and its admissibility in courts:
“After Daubert, a per se rule is not viable. Because no panel has squarely addressed the issue of polygraph admissibility since Daubert, en banc consideration is not required for this decision. Id. at 433. Concerning technological advances, the Circuit further noted that modern research indicates a seventy to ninety percent accuracy rate. Id. at 434.
The Court prescribed a three-step inquiry: (1) the Court determines whether the evidence is relevant and reliable pursuant to Daubert; (2), the Court determines whether the evidence will assist the trier of fact in determining a fact at issue; and (3) the court must decide if the evidence has an unfairly prejudicial effect that would substantially outweigh its probationer value under Rule 403. Id. at 32-35. In United States v. Dominguez, 902 F.Supp. 737 (S.D. Tex.1995), the Southern District promulgated several factors to consider in making this particular balance:
1) That all parties be present to observe the proceedings.
2) That there be a legal commitment irrevocably allowing the admission of the results by both sides.
3) That the subject commit to be examined by any polygraph expert designated by the other side.
4) When more than one exam is contemplated, the choice of the first examiner take place by chance.
5) That the pre-test interview be allowed by all sides with all sides present.
6) That the post-test interview be allowed by all sides with all sides present.
7) That immediately prior the test the subject be examined for any sedative or drugs in his body.
8) That the rules that do not admit character evidence for truthfulness be legally waived.
9) That no questions be permitted to the mental state of the defendant at the time of the alleged commission of the event.
10) The failure of the Defendant to make himself available to testify in the case should also be a consideration.”
Here is a more recent case that was heard in April 2024:
Alex Murdaugh, who is already serving two life sentences for the murder of his wife and child, was sentenced to 40 years in prison for 22 federal financial crimes, including conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud; bank fraud; wire fraud; and money laundering. In October 2023, an FBI polygraph examiner conducted a two-part polygraph test on Murdaugh, the filing says. The results indicated deception, causing Murdaugh to fail, and according to the government's argument, breaching and voiding his plea agreement. As a result, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina is asking a court to release the federal government from the terms of that agreement, freeing prosecutors from their obligation to recommend Murdaugh serve a federal prison sentence concurrent with one imposed in state court for similar crimes.
Once again, this goes to show that polygraph testing can and will be used in a court of law.
If you notice, they all mention changes since the 1921 Frye vs. U.S. case regarding accuracy and reliability. However, what's happening is that judges still rely on old reliability factors when making decisions.
Understanding the Role of Judicial Discretion in Polygraph Testing in Courts
You might wonder why polygraph testing isn't universally accepted across all courts. That's a great question, and here's the answer. In every legal case, whether it's a criminal misdemeanor, felony, civil, or federal case, the judge presiding over the case acts as the trier of all evidence. The judge oversees all evidence presented, whether it's physical (like documents, electronics, or weapons) or testimony from witnesses. The judge determines if the evidence is legitimate and authentic when presented by either the defense or prosecution.
Each piece of evidence is debated for its admissibility in the trial. If there's a jury, the evidence undergoes even more scrutiny to ensure the jurors only see, touch, and hear what's deemed appropriate. This careful scrutiny is meant to prevent jurors from being swayed, prejudiced, or biased against the defendant. Sometimes, the exclusion of certain evidence can harm the defendant's case, but ultimately, it's the judge's decision. That's why they're called judges—they have the final say.
Analyzing Evidence Criteria and Polygraph Utilization in Courts
Let’s delve into evidence. It's assessed through several factors.
For physical evidence, such as a laptop, handgun, ballistics, or a handwritten letter, the presenting witness explains how they collected it, their experience in identifying it, its relevance to the specific crime, its functionality, and why it should be linked to the defendant at trial. The witness's experience and credibility are crucial during testimony.
Regarding witness testimony, both the jury and judge assess the witness's credibility, education, clarity in articulation, and any potential motives. Was the witness's account accurate, concise, and aligned with the crime's timeline and the defendant's actions? Expert witnesses, if sworn in, are evaluated based on their expertise, knowledge of the subject matter, articulation, and credibility.
When it comes to polygraph testing or lie detector testing testimony, the same factors for expert witness testimony apply: credibility, articulation, experience in their field, accuracy regarding testing procedures, and alignment with the specifics of the examination day and their professional opinions.
During arguments over evidence, both sides often try to discredit experts or witness statements to cast doubt on their credibility. However, in the case of polygraph testing, accuracy and credibility are always crucial factors. This is why some judges do not allow polygraph testing in their courts, as they may lack knowledge of the most recent scientific accuracy results and rely on outdated standards or rulings. Conversely, newer, more open-minded judges and attorneys can consider new scientific research, publications, and journals. These informed individuals are better equipped to make decisions regarding allowing polygraph testing into their hearings on a limited basis, ultimately benefiting the defendant.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of polygraph testing and stated that the true objective of any trier of facts, whether it's the jury or judge, is crucial. If a polygraph examiner testifies in court, their testimony cannot be the sole determinant of the entire weight of the case. Even if an individual passes their exam and tells the truth, the ultimate determination of truth and facts rests with the judge and jury.
The Polygraph Advantage: How to Utilize it in Legal Matters
If you ever consider using a polygraph test in a legal matter, here's how it typically works in your favor. First and foremost, you need to find and hire an experienced polygraph examiner for your important matter at hand. Whether it's for a civil matter like family or divorce issues, or a criminal matter such as allegations of child sexual abuse, rape, theft, or probation violation, the expertise of your examiner is crucial. Look for an examiner with at least 15 years of experience, preferably with a law enforcement background and a track record of success with attorneys in significant cases.
Once you've chosen your experienced examiner, schedule a consultation and examination. Your examiner will guide you through the process and provide assistance along the way. After completing your final exam, the examiner will send the results to your attorney, who has experience winning cases using polygraph tests. These results can then be used to inform law enforcement, social agencies, or prosecutors, potentially influencing the investigation or prosecution of your case and making it more challenging to proceed.
It's worth noting the double standard often seen in using polygraph testing. Law enforcement frequently utilizes failed polygraph results to support allegations of guilt in criminal cases. However, when a suspect passes the test, the results are often dismissed. If you take a polygraph and successfully prove your innocence in a crime or allegation, why shouldn't it be used to support you? There should be no double standards. Therefore, if you firmly believe in your innocence, consider taking a polygraph and hiring an experienced attorney familiar with polygraph testing to help you win your case.
Disclaimer: Just because you take a polygraph, pass it, and hire an experienced examiner does not guarantee that the judge presiding over the case will accept the polygraph results or that you will win the case, even if the judge does accept the polygraph. Ultimately, it is at the discretion of the judge who oversees the case to decide whether to admit any evidence during the trial.
However, if you refrain from taking action to address your situation, all you're doing is contemplating the "what if" scenario. What if I did take a polygraph and won? What if I took one and hired an attorney? What might have happened if I had taken a polygraph and gone to court? You'll never know unless you take decisive steps and act upon it.
In conclusion, throughout my 22 ½ years as an advanced board-certified expert polygraph examiner, I've had the privilege of being subpoenaed to numerous courts to assist and testify in individuals' lives.
As a polygraph examiner, I've helped prevent innocent people from facing prison time for crimes they didn't commit. I've aided truthful victims in finding closure and receiving fair justice. I've also played a role in securing the release of innocent individuals who were unfairly incarcerated at the hands of misjustice. Additionally, I've testified on the prosecution's side, contributing to the conviction of those who have committed crimes against children and our nation. Polygraph testing serves both sides of the legal spectrum and is effective when judges allow jurors to consider all evidence.
If you are in need of any assistance, don't hesitate to reach out to Executive Protection Group Polygraph Service to schedule your polygraph examination.
Take the pivotal step towards peace of mind by connecting with Mr. David Goldberg, the founder of Executive Protection Group Polygraph Service. With over 30 years of experience as an Advanced Board-Certified Polygraph Examiner and Investigator, Mr. David Goldberg brings unparalleled expertise.
Our mission at Executive Protection Group Polygraph Service is clear: to eliminate doubts and ensure you find the closure you deserve to move forward in your life. Specializing in comprehensive and confidential polygraph examinations, we serve clients in Hampton Roads, including Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Newport News, Suffolk, Hampton, and beyond. Led by Mr. David Goldberg, a Virginia State Licensed Advanced Board-Certified Polygraph Examiner and nationally recognized expert, our commitment is to deliver immediate, reliable, and accurate results.
To explore how we can assist you further, review our polygraph services or call Executive Protection Group Polygraph Service today to schedule your polygraph examination. Take the first step towards resolution and peace of mind with us.
