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.