Very rarely, as Polygraphs (Popularily called Lie-detectors) are generally not permissable as Court evidence. It is conceivable scertain types of cases such as those involving memory loss following violent accidents (crashes which may have killed other people, hence vehicular homicides) might be an exception to the rule and possibly identity-missing persons cases and legal proceedings involving illegal aliens and displaced persons. it is known they WERE employed by the KGB in many phases of the Anastasia case and a relative of mine knew a Russian psychiatrist who conducted these tests-after having been(seconded) By the Moscow Field office as a (Police Psychiatrist) shrinks who were on call in general hospitals were frequently called-upfor forensic(crime solving) work by the KGB. But that"s Russia! in the US iot is very rare for any court-ordered use unless possibly memory-loss cases involving accidents, as mentioned above or foreign language cases where the subject is not a U.S. Citizen! a very interesting question, with some technical advice by a Dr.Viktor Bubovsky if he is still alive! He conducted tests on a (Stacy) claimant in the late fifties.
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.
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.
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.
In Texas, the admissibility of polygraph results in court is generally limited. While polygraph tests can be used in some circumstances, such as for investigative purposes or by agreement between parties, they are not typically considered reliable enough to be admitted as evidence in a trial. Courts often view polygraph results with skepticism due to questions about their accuracy and the potential for misleading conclusions. Thus, their use is more common in pre-trial situations rather than as evidence in court.
Although the use of polygraph results as evidence in court is regularly challenged - it IS a useful tool and is used in the preliminary stage of many criminal investigations.
no
Polygraph tests, commonly known as lie detector tests, have been used in various court cases, though their admissibility varies by jurisdiction. While some courts accept polygraph results as supplementary evidence, others exclude them due to concerns over their reliability and the potential for misleading juries. For instance, in the 1998 case of United States v. Scheffer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the exclusion of polygraph results did not violate a defendant's rights. Overall, the use of polygraphs in court remains controversial and often depends on the specific legal context.
Polygraph results are generally not admissible in court-martial proceedings. The military courts typically follow similar standards to civilian courts regarding the reliability and validity of polygraph tests. While they may be used in investigations or as part of a plea deal, their results cannot be relied upon as definitive evidence 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.
In police work, the two major uses of polygraph testing are specific issue testing and preemployment screening. In specific issue testing, the polygraph is used to investigate whether a particular person is responsible for or involved in the commission of a specific offense. Polygraph testing can help to verify information collected during traditional background investigations and to uncover information not otherwise available. The commonly held belief that polygraph examination results are not admitted into evidence in court is untrue. Some courts admit polygraph evidence even over the objection of counsel; in other jurisdictions, polygraph results are admitted by stipulation
Of course I'll submit to a polygraph test.
A polygraph, commonly known as a lie detector, is a device used in Ontario and elsewhere to measure physiological responses—such as heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration—while a person answers questions. It is often employed in criminal investigations, employment screenings, and security evaluations. However, the reliability of polygraph results is controversial, and their use is subject to legal and ethical considerations. In Ontario, the results of polygraph tests are not typically admissible as evidence in court.