Friday, August 17, 2007

Are polygraphs admissible anyway?

Polygraphs are rarely admissible in court. New Mexico is the only state in the United States that allows for open admissibility of polygraph exam results. Every other state requires some type of stipulation to be met prior to admitting polygraph exams into record. In most cases, both sides of a legal case have to agree prior to the trial that they will allow polygraphs to be admitted. On the federal level, the admissibility criteria are much more vague and admission typically depends on the approval of the judge.
Evidence Code Section 351.1:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the results of a polygraph examination, the opinion of a polygraph examiner, or any reference to an offer to take, failure to take, or taking of a polygraph examination, shall not be admitted into evidence in any criminal proceeding, including pretrial and post conviction motions and hearings, or in any trial or hearing of a juvenile for a criminal offense, whether heard in juvenile or adult court, unless all parties stipulate to the admission of such results.
(b) Nothing in this section is intended to exclude from evidence statements made during a polygraph examination which are otherwise admissible.

So, assuming there is an express stipulation in the Plea Deal, is there going to be a lie detector hooked up to Kesser when he testifies against his former girlfriend, who was convicted along with him and the hit man? And then will the results of that lie detector be admissible to the judge? Will there have to be a trial or can the decision that he has failed to adhere to the deal just be made unilaterally? By whom? Paul? Or the judge? If a polygraph is rarely admissible in court, is it any more admissible as a condition for a plea deal?

I'm just asking.


  1. There are valid reasons why the polygrapy is not admissible as evidence.

  2. Yeah. And one of them is that sociopaths can fool them. Which could well be the case here.

    So WHY is - ahhhhh, you can't try to anlayze this one rationally. It makes no sense, If he just tells the truth, we let him out - and I'll throw in this part about the polygraph to make people think I mean it - BUT...

    Does it make sense to anybody? Can you explain it to me?

  3. Lucky for Kesser he didn't let his toddler wander. Fortunately for him, he just killed his toddler's mother. Otherwise Paul would have thrown the book at him.

  4. No one can explain this to you Rose. It is unexplainable. It is sick. But even more than sick it is justice turned backwards. Justice for Mary Kesser has been taken away from her. What in the hell is going on? Never have I seen this before, it is usually the other way around, like with Andrea LaDeRoute.

  5. The Real Anonymous8/18/2007 8:01 PM

    This would be the second time they have come up with this whacked out way of determining guilt or innocence. Remember the Garza's?

  6. Yeah, exactly. That was weird hocus pocus. This is insane. And both are extremely serious offenses.

  7. The polygraph is kind of a scientific witch hunt or crap shoot. Any real information/truth comes from the examiner getting the subject to "cop out" to whatever before the machine, or box, is even turned on. Not a good way to make decisions on serious cases, at least in my opinion.


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.