Thus, if someone is trying to coerce a suspect into taking a polygraph test, they should contact a criminal law attorney immediately to protect their constitutional rights. Although it is generally not recommended, an individual may request to take a polygraph to prove their innocence.
However, it is important to remember that these exams are not the most reliable form of evidence. In other words, someone who is innocent can still appear to be lying on these tests due to nervousness or anxiety. On the other hand, a person who is not innocent may be able to pass a polygraph test. Regardless of the outcome, law enforcement and the prosecutor can find other evidence that supports a guilty verdict.
The prosecutor can use this fact as more evidence against the defendant if the defendant introduces the results to prove they are innocent at trial, which may then end up hurting their case rather than helping it. The laws and issues surrounding polygraph tests can often be difficult to understand without the help of a lawyer. Each jurisdiction also has different procedural requirements for taking polygraph tests and interpreting their results.
They may also have various clauses in their regulations that do not apply in every state. Therefore, if you have any questions or issues regarding a polygraph test, then you should speak to a local criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. An experienced criminal defense attorney will be able to discuss the results of your test and can explain what they might mean for your case.
Your attorney can also inform you of your rights as a criminal defendant, discuss your potential legal options e. Jaclyn Wishnia. Jaclyn started at LegalMatch in October Her role entails writing legal articles for the law library division, located on the LegalMatch website. Prior to joining LegalMatch, Jaclyn was a paralegal and freelance writer.
After several years of working for both criminal defense and entertainment law firms, she enrolled in law school. While in law school, her law journal note was selected for first-round publishing, and can be found on various legal research databases. Jaclyn holds a J. Cardozo School of Law, specializing in both intellectual property law and data law; and a B.
You can learn more about Jaclyn here. Jose Rivera. Law Library Disclaimer. Can't find your category? Click here. Choose a Legal Category: Family Law. Real Estate and Property Law. Criminal Law. Personal Injury. Defective Products. Intellectual Property. Business and Commercial Law.
Please provide a valid Zip Code or City and choose a category. American Psychologist , , 30 , — Barnett, F. How do a jury view polygraph examination results? Polygraph , , 2 , — Carlson, S. The effect of lie detector evidence on jury deliberations: An empirical study. Journal of Police Science and Administration , , 5 , — Doob, A. The effect of the revoking of bail: R. Criminal Law Quarterly , , 19 , — Forkosoch, M.
The lie detector and the courts. Horvath, F. The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. Journal of Applied Psychology , , 62 , — The reliability of polygraph examiner diagnosis of truth and deception. Kalven, H. The American Jury. Boston: Little Brown and Co. Koffler, J.
The lie-detector: A critical appraisal of the technique as a potential undermining factor in the judicial process. New York Law Forum , , 3 , — Loftus, E. Reconstructing memory: The incredible eyewitness. Jurimetrics Journal , 15 , Lykken, D. Psychology and the lie detector industry. American Psychologist , , 29 , — The psychopath and the lie detector.
Psychophysiology , , 15 , — The detection of deception. Psychological Bulletin , , 86 , 47— Phillion vs the Queen. Canadian Criminal Cases , 2nd edition , , 33 , Podlesny, J. Physiological measures and the detection of deception. Psychological Bulletin , , 84 , — It would be much easier if, when police were faced with two contradictory versions of a single event, there was a machine that could identify which party was telling the truth.
Even its inventor was worried about calling it a "lie detector. In , John Larson was working as a part-time cop in Berkeley, California.
A budding criminologist with a Ph. Building on the work of William Moulton Marston , Larson believed that the act of deception was accompanied by physical tells. Lying, he thought, makes people nervous, and this could be identified by changes in breathing and blood pressure. Measuring these changes in real-time might serve as a reliable proxy for spotting lies. Improving upon previously developed technologies, Larson created a device that simultaneously recorded changes in breathing patterns, blood pressure, and pulse.
The device was further refined by his younger colleague, Leonarde Keeler, who made it faster, more reliable, and portable and added a perspiration test.
0コメント