skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 148969 Find in a Library
Title: Appellate Decisions Involving Polygraph Issues
Journal: Polygraph  Volume:23  Issue:1  Dated:(1994)  Pages:95-104
Author(s): N Ansley
Date Published: 1994
Page Count: 10
Type: Legislation/Policy Description
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article presents abstracts of 11 recent appellate court cases that involve polygraph issues.
Abstract: There are a number of cases that suggest a polygraph examination given for the purpose of gaining a confession, rather than to facilitate an investigation, is so inherently repugnant that the confession is inadmissible. This was the primary reason for overturning the conviction of a man who admitted after a polygraph examination that he burned his restaurant and warehouse for the insurance. In Amyot v. Her Majesty the Queen, a Quebec appellate judge overturned the conviction for that reason. In State v. Craig, the Montana Supreme Court rendered a similar decision, that is, that a confession following a polygraph examination is inadmissible. The author of this article suggests that polygraph examiners should stop stating that a polygraph examination has three parts: pretest, test, and posttest. Any confession coming in the pretest or posttest, despite a Miranda warning, may be so tied to the polygraph examination that it will be excluded. It has already happened in Johnson v. State (Georgia), in which the appellate court said the trial court erred in admitting the inculpatory statements of the defendant made during the pretest and posttest phases of a polygraph examination. The author recommends that polygraph examiners dissociate the pretest and posttest phases from polygraph examinations, since this teaching is unnecessary and imprudent.
Main Term(s): Criminology
Index Term(s): Appellate court decisions; Polygraphs; Rules of evidence
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=148969

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.