Can a polygraph be used against you?

California Prohibits Admission of Polygraph Tests Not only the results of the test are barred from evidence. If your lawyer believes this may show the police or prosecution you are wrongly accused, you can sit for a lie detector without having to worry that the results will be used against you.

What are the limitation of polygraph?

One limitation of the GKT is that it can be used only when investigators have information that only a guilty subject would know. The interpretation of “no deception” is also a potential limitation, since it may indicate lack of knowledge rather than innocence.

How reliable are polygraph tests?

There have been several reviews of polygraph accuracy. They suggest that polygraphs are accurate between 80\% and 90\% of the time. This means polygraphs are far from foolproof, but better than the average person’s ability to spot lies, which research suggests they can do around 55\% of the time.

Are polygraph tests admissible in court?

Diagnostic polygraph examinations have been admitted into court as evidence, while interrogations using polygraph as a wedge to confessions frequently have been ruled as inadmissible in court. A rule that investigators may want to follow is to choose the polygraph examiner as if yourself were going to be requested to submit to take an exam.

What is the role of the polygraph in the investigation process?

The polygraph, when properly used as an investigative tool to eliminate the wrongfully accused and identify the guilty, can provide the investigator with a more efficient and productive use of his case time. Unfortunately, misunderstanding and misuse as to the polygraph’s role in the investigative process still persist.

How should I choose a polygraph examiner?

A rule that investigators may want to follow is to choose the polygraph examiner as if yourself were going to be requested to submit to take an exam. As many of you have heard, the polygraph is only as good as the examiner.

Are self-incriminating statements inadmissible in court?

If the individual is not made aware of his rights (including the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent), then self-incriminating statements the individual makes will be inadmissible in court. In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) , the Supreme Court used a narrow interpretation of the right not to testify against oneself.