0
Is a polygraph test result admissible in court as evidence yes or no and why?
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
no
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is a polygraph admissible in Indiana?
A polygraph examination is admissible in court only by the stipulation (agreement) of both parties. This is true in all U.S. courts, not just Indiana. Polygraph evidence is seldom used in court.
Is polygraph test are visible as evidence in court?
No, polygraph tests are not admissible in court. Court precedents have decided that the polygraph test is unreliable, and that the test could dishonestly persuade the jury's verdict. The polygraph test is only used for investigative, law enforcement needs.
Are weekly AAA meetings admissible in court?
AA meetings can be admissible in court. If they are court ordered or relevant to an issue or evidence, then it usually is admissible.
Is not admissible evidence in court?
Hearsay
How do you use admissible in a sentence?
Your mode of dress is not admissible in court. The evidence cries to be admissible, your honor!
Can you give me a sentence for the word admissible?
The evidence was not admissible in court due to it having no relevance to the proceedings.
Is a polygraph test inadmissible in court?
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.
Is poligragh testing admissable 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.
How would you use admissible in a sentence?
In a court of law the only evidence that can be admissible must be gotten legally.
Is admissible evidence in small claims court?
Yes, from what I have seen on court TV shows. There is a lot of info in the headers that can make them reliable evidence.
Is a palm print admissible in court?
Yes, palm prints can be admissible in court as evidence. Palm prints can be used to identify individuals just like fingerprints. The admissibility of palm print evidence will depend on the circumstances of the case and the rules of evidence in the jurisdiction.
What US Supreme Court cases involve use of a polygraph?
On March 31, 1998 the US Supreme Court issued a ruling (United States v. Scheffer, 523 US 303 (1998)) that overturned a case involving polygraph evidence. However, their decision did not completely disallow the use of polygraphs as admissible evidence in criminal trials. The justices ruled (in a split decision) that state and federal governments MAY ban the use of polygraph evidence in court, declaring that doubts and uncertainties remain about the accuracy of the so-called lie-detector tests. It should be noted that the operative word in the decision is MAY and not SHALL. See related link below:
