Would you dismiss a criminal case just because a defendant passed a polygraph? An Enron defendant thinks you should: read the story.

If a polygraph cannot be used to convict, why would I dismiss? There may be other factors, coupled with a passed polygraph, which might lead to a dismissal. But just the fact that a polygraph was passed would not lead me to dismiss a case.

I recently had a prosecutor contact me and suggest a plea bargain in which the defendant agreed to make the disposition of the criminal case dependent on the outcome of the polygraph. Would you agree to that? And how would you structure it to make it enforceable?

I wouldn't agree to it. While I'm sure there will be some who disagree with me on this, as far as I'm concerned I don't believe the polygraph is effective in establishing innocence. I had an Indecency With a Child case a couple of years ago where the defendant passed not one but TWO polygraph examinations. After hearing both the victim and defendant testify at trial, the jury took about 10 minutes to find the defendant guilty and not much longer than that to give him 10 years in the pen. No doubt in my mind either than this guy was guilty as sin and that the polygraph results were both false.

We did it (dismiss a case) most of the time in the Air Force, AS LONG AS the defendant took and passed OUR polygraph administered by OUR people. We would NEVER dismiss based on some private polygraph exam.

I have dismissed based on a polygraph given by an examiner I have confidence in. This has generally been in borderline cases where the evidence boils down to a "he said/she said". I wil not dismiss simply based on polygraph given by a "defense examiner" and his report of his opinion.

Other than considering a dismissal, what is the purpose of a polygraph?

I have also made similar offer on weak cases. Mostly to shut the defence attorney up. I have never had to actuelly dismiss. No one has passed on yet.

I have always been of the opinion that a polygraph is only as good as the operator. We have a couple (at least) that I put absolutely no faith in whatsoever, having formed the opinion that they will say whatever they are paid to say. Regardless, we don't make decisions based upon a polygraph test alone, but rather just consider that as a factor along with everything else in a case. Also, I would never agree to dismiss a case if the defendant passed a polygraph unless I was already willing to dismiss it even if he didn't take one. It's just a bad idea to put that decision in the hands of someone outside of your office. What I usually tell defense attorneys is that if the guy passes, I will re-examine my case in light of the test.

In my early career as a defense attorney (before I saw the light), I had a theft client who swore up and down that he was innocent. I had him run on a polygraph four times, and the operator was adamant about what a clean chart the guy ran...no guilty knowledge of the theft. Of course, the other side of the story: an accomplice that spiulled the beans and the guy was guiltier than sin. Moral: the devices are not infallible. As a rule, I won't dismiss based on polygraph results unless DPS runs it and we don't have adequate evidence.

Does anyone use the polygraph as an excuse for a conversation with the defendant, leading to a confession?

Up until about 1996, I would consider dismissing if a defendant passed a polygraph administered by a reliable examiner (usually DPS), along with other circumstances being present. However, when a defendant in a murder case passed the exam once, then failed a second time, with the same facts and same examiner, I lost faith in any polygraph and stopped considering them altogether.

Aldrich Ames, one of the most damaging spies in recent U.S. history passed TWO polygraph tests conducted by the Feds.

Anyone with ice in their veins can pass a polygraph test, no sweat (no pun intended). And doesn't your run-of-the-mill sociopathic, emotionally flat scumbag have nothing BUT ice in their blood?

To respond to John's earlier query, we have used a polygraph successfully on more than one occasion to prompt the defendant to engage in further conversation with a detective, which many times led to a written confession. To me that's the real value of a polygraph examination, as an investigative tool rather than a plea bargain incentive.

What about a swearing match case where the entire case depends on the credibility of the victim? I have on occasion asked the defendant to polygraph to help me determine whether I believe the denial is credible. If you ask the defendant to polygraph in such circumstances and he passes your test, doesn't it shake your confidence in his guilt? I guess if you don't believe polygraphs are ever trustworthy it probably doesn't. The FBI rules out suspects based on polygraph results. Anyway, I use the test sometimes in a close call to help me determine whether I believe the defendant and to give the investigators an opportunity to interrogate after the failing result. Has lead to a number of confessions.

Given the reliability of the polygraph, the only person who should fear taking one is the innocent guy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Bradley:
Does anyone use the polygraph as an excuse for a conversation with the defendant, leading to a confession?

---

I have done this on many occasions with good results. A confession to a Capital Murder was obtained this way by my Investigator. I also had a child molester confess to the examiner in the pre- exam interview before ever getting hooked up.

The only legit use of a polygraph is as a means of getting a confession from a crook. I have had a number of cases where the crook insisted on his innocence until he failed a polygraph, and then he gave a detailed, written or videoed confession.

A det. I know told me he once used a copier machine as an impromptu "lie detector" machine, with a rather unsophisticated suspect. He said he wrote in a heavy black hand "He's lying" and placed the paper on the glass of the copier. He brought the crook into the room and explained that the copier was a polygraph machine and could tell when he was telling the truth or a lie. He carefully spread the crook's fingers over the top of the copier, and then asked a series of questions. Then he asked, "Did you break into the house on Robin Ave.?" and the crook said no.

The det. then told the crook, "well, let's see if you're telling me the truth." He pressed the button, and the copier machine rumbled and the light under the cover flashed, and then a piece of paper swished out of the tray. "He's lying," it said.

He showed the paper to the crook, who immediately agreed with machine, and gave a very satisfactory confession.

By the way, in N.M., polygraph "evidence" is admissable. Talk about junk science.

There are explicit instructions on the internet for how to beat a polygraph test.

AntiPolygraph.org

I have a theory. Absolutely everything necessary for life is now available on the internet. You just need the right Google.