Weird scenario: Defendant (actually a juvenile), is set up to take a polygraph. His older brother took polygraph right before him, and following a DI, confessed to sexually assaulting his sister. Defendant is then brought into polygraph room and before he can take the exam confesses to also sexually assaulting his sister. Judge has denied a motion to suppress confession. We have the interrogation on video. The polygraph machinery is clearly visible in the video. Defense counsel does NOT want machinery redacted because she wants to argue that it produced a coercive environment. On this same video and prior to the interrogation, investigator tells defendant that his older brother had failed and confessed. Two questions: does the machinery have to be redacted? and, can the mention of the brother's failure be admitted to show the jury the entire context of the interrogation? brother has already been convicted and sent away.

There is plenty of case law (probably all outside of Texas) stating that referencing polygraph testing for some purpose other than to show the truthfulness of responses during the test is admissible. That the machinery (or context of the interrogation) played a role in inducing the admission of guilt has the same logical relevance to me as refusal to submit a breath sample. Mention of a co-actor's polygraph result seems a bit more of a problem (because you are revealing or using the result of the test), but that again is the context for the defendant's statements. If someone were frightened by train whistles, would that be a basis to exclude the fact that a train passed by during the episode? The defendant chose to discuss his case while scheduled for a polygraph and after his brother had failed and confessed. I say there is no reason for him to pretend this all took place in a vacuum. To me the relevance outweighs any prejudice under Rule 403.