Polygraph Admissibility in U.S. Courts on a State-by-State Basis

Use of polygraphs in criminal and civil cases

Polygraphs have a unique role in the legal and judicial system as the only major device used by both clinicians and law enforcement alike in assessing truthfulness. As part of a diagnostic interview in a clinical setting, polygraph results can help to identify specific target symptoms and areas for further exploration. In a legal or law enforcement setting, polygraphs have the objective of assessing veracity and credibility. Both uses, clinical and legal, are distinct.
In law enforcement, for screening purposes, investigative procedures, or pretrial and trial procedures, the polygraph examination is intended to measure two things: (1) whether or not the examinee demonstrates no physical responses to questions, which are then presumed to be truthful, and (2) whether or not the examinee demonstrates physical responses to questions , which are then presumed to be indicative of deception.
Despite post-examination reports produced by well-conducted and psychometrically sound examinations, which are presented to attorneys, judges, fact finders, juries, and others in the legal system, controversy abounds as to the admissibility or inadmissibility of polygraph results.
Attorneys, or the court, are not necessarily equipped with the scientific and personal background to understand the methodology of this particular technique designed to assess truthfulness. Although different states have different regulations and levels of acceptance of the reliability of polygraph evidence, a number of state supreme courts have addressed whether the results should be allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, be that the judge hearing the case or the jury.

States That Admit Polygraphs in Court

Currently, state statutes and Quasi Judicial rules allow for the admissibility of polygraph results in the following states: Texas – Texas Rule of Evidence, Rule 703: "If otherwise admissible, evidence of a polygraph examination may be admitted if (a.) the party offering testimony relating to the polygraph examination, before or concurrently with the offering, informed the court and the other parties that the party offering the testimony intends to offer such testimony into evidence at the time of offering the testimony; (b.) at least two weeks before the trial, the party offering the testimony provided to the other parties, by letter, a written statement authorizing the polygraph examination, copies of any written materials to be used in the examination including an agreed statement of the relevant facts as to which the examination is to be directed, and the name of each witness the party intends to call at trial to give testimony concerning the proposed polygraph examination." •Texas law requires that the examiner use and have available a fully calibrated, proper quality polygraph with two channels and a standard chart. •The polygraph equipment must conform to all specifications of the American Association of Police Polygraphists. •Both sides to the litigation should stipulate to the proposed basis for polygraph testing and agree with the examiner on questions and answers to be asked. Florida – In Florida v. Cedar automotive dealer sued another because of purported breach of a ECU bonding contract and lower sales. Plaintiff took polygraph test and claims error in exclusion of polygraph results. •Meaning – The scope of polygraphic testing is measured by the polygrapist’s special expertise. This means that the controlling standard is the deception-truth standard and is measured by [polygrapher credibilty]. The polygraph standard does not apply to a lie detector test when it is not applied by an expert. •Relevance – the polygraph results posses a high probative value and is more probative than a criminal charge. The defendant signed an agreement to submit to a polygraph examination and allowed plaintiff to take possession of the polygraph test. •Admissible – Polygraph evidence is admissible to support claim. States Not Allowing Polygraph Results in Court Nevada, Virginia, and Vermont have statutes prohibiting admission of polygraph results. •In Nevada, Virginia, and Vermont, polygraph exams are inadmissible in courts.

States That Prohibit or Limit the Use of Polygraphs as Evidence in Court

In Arkansas, polygraph results are inadmissible in any civil or criminal case. The Arkansas Supreme Court has repeatedly held that polygraphs are inadmissible because they have not been shown to be sufficiently reliable.
California courts also refuse to allow the admission of polygraph results into evidence. This stems from concerns about the reliability of a polygraph examination, and concerns that even reliable polygraph results would be misused by the jury.
Connecticut courts will not admit polygraph results into evidence on either the defendant’s or the plaintiff’s behalf. There is no precedent in Connecticut for evidencing a polygraph examination by admission into evidence, and a "plaintiff has no right to compel the defendant to undergo [the] polygraph testing… . " Smith v. Avery, 159 Conn. 488, 501 (1970).
In Illinois, results of polygraph examinations involving second degree murder are not admissible. People v. Townsel, 153 Ill. 2d 274, 289 (1992). Even if a criminal defendant’s consent to polygraph testing is obtained, the results of the polygraph are inadmissible unless there is a written agreement between the parties stating that the results are to be admissible. People v. Shipley, 116 Ill. 2d 98, 100 (1987). Any agreement between the parties must be in writing and signed or recorded at the time the testing was performed. People v. Oehler, 177 Ill. App. 2d 347, 348 (1970). However, Illinois courts will admit polygraph evidence in civil cases upon receipt of the results into evidence if there is a written agreement between the parties that the polygraph results will be admissible in evidence. Shametz v. American Airlines, Inc., 402 Ill.App.3d 694 (2010).
Like Illinois, Massachusetts courts allow the admission of polygraph results in civil cases if there is a written stipulation between the parties that the results will be admissible. Commonwealth v. Meadowbrook Care Center, Inc., 568 N.E.2d 1103 (Mass. 1991). Although parties in both civil and criminal actions can stipulate to the admission of polygraph results into evidence, a criminal defendant cannot compel a plaintiff, witness, or victim to submit to a polygraph test. Commonwealth v. Bullock, 442 Mass. 818 (2004).
Missouri courts prohibit the introduction of polygraph results into evidence. State v. Howard, 947 S.W.2d 2, 3 (Mo. App. 1997).
Montana courts will not allow polygraph examination results into evidence. State v. Becker, 811 P.2d 485 (Mont. 1991). However, the court does permit polygraph evidence with the consent of the opposing party. State v. Quigg, 804 P.2d 1083 (Mont. 1991).
New Hampshire courts generally do not allow polygraph results into evidence; however, if the parties stipulate to the admissibility of the polygraph results, the results may be admitted into evidence. In problem solving courts such as drug courts, both parties are usually required to enter into a stipulation regarding the admissibility of polygraph results before they are admissible as evidence. State v. McCoy, 861 A.2d 1258, 1263 (N.H. 2004).
New Mexico courts will not allow polygraph examination results into evidence. State v. Blythe, 532 P.2d 167, 169 (N.M. 1975).
Oregon courts follow the New Hampshire approach and will admit polygraph results provided both parties agree to the admissibility of the results. State v. Hutton, 949 P.2d 1177, 1180 (Oregon Ct. App. 1998). Defendant has the burden of producing evidence of the agreement between the parties. State v. Kreiser, 955 P.2d 757, 760 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
Pennsylvania courts generally do not allow the introduction of polygraph results into evidence. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decided polygraph evidence to be inadmissible on the basis that it has a high margin of error. However, if the parties agree to the introduction of polygraph results, then the results are admissible. Commonwealth v. Matthews, 558 A.2d 550, 552 (Pa. Super. 1989). Pennsylvania courts require the defendant to produce evidence that both parties agreed to admissibility. Commonwealth v. Queen, 358 A.2d 875 (Pa. Super. 1976).
Tennessee courts do not permit the introduction of polygraph results into evidence in either civil or criminal cases unless there is an agreed stipulation between the parties regarding the admissibility of polygraph results. State v. Dyer, 673 S.W.2d 204, 205 (Tenn. 1984). If the defendant fails to show that the parties have agreed to the admissibility of the polygraph results, the jury may hear only that the defendant submitted to the test. State v. T420, 38 S.W. 3d 31, 35 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).
Texas courts will not allow the jury to hear evidence of the defendant’s polygraph examination. Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). However, polygraph evidence is admissible without stipulation only in juvenile matters. McCormick v. State, 746 S.W.2d 500, 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).
Utah courts allow the introduction of polygraph results only if the other party agrees to admissibility. State v. Ralphs, 830 P.2d 1019 (Utah Ct. App. 1992).

Factors That Affect Polygraph Admissibility

Considerations for Admitting Polygraphs in U.S. Courts
Admissibility of polygraph or lie detector evidence varies from state to state. Some states allow polygraph results to come into evidence for limited considerations and in a very few limited circumstances. Other states have blanket bans on the admissibility of such evidence. Let’s see how the specific states stack up:
California
In California, polygraphs are inadmissible as evidence but may be used for other purposes. In People vs. Wilkins (1988), the court allowed reviewers of pre-conviction inmate evaluation files to use polygraphs in some circumstances. The policies require polygraph results to be submitted by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist and are acknowledged by at least one expert witness.
Florida
In Florida, courts are still governed by the Judge Cleland Guidelines. In a notable case in 2000 , the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal in Boynton Beach upheld the ordering of a post-conviction polygraph of a defendant convicted of sexual assault of a child. They cited the Cleland Guidelines by quoting from a Michigan Supreme Court case in considering the reliability of the results.
Utah
Utah also has a long history of conditional acceptance of polygraphs, despite Utah’s (and the legislature’s) most recent attempt to overrule their evidentiary standards by statute. The Utah Supreme Court has continually reaffirmed the value of polygraphs in Post Conviction Relief cases. A defendant must show the following in order to get a new trial in Utah based on polygraph evidence:

The test results were kept secret from the prosecutor and public before the post-conviction relief hearing.
The result of the test was a failure, not a success.
The evidence supporting the defendant’s conviction was circumstantial.
The defendant failed to disclose his intent to take the test.

Applications and Examples of Polygraphs Admitted in Trial Courts

A few state courts, however, have admitted polygraph results for limited purposes. Although many of these rulings were issued before the most recent criticisms of polygraphy, studies suggest that just 8% of these rulings were reversed on appeal.
In State v. Harris, a Minnesota appeals court held that "other court cases involving judicially approved polygraphs can be collected from various sources and compiled into a coherent whole." In Harris, the other-acts doctrine generally excluded polygraph results, because they were being offered for truthfulness, but later in the case expressly permitted polygraph results to be used for "the very limited purpose of impeaching the credibility" of another witness.
The Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Rushin cited Harris with approval. Although the Colorado Supreme Court initially dismissed the polygraph results as inadmissible, the state high court later clarified that polygraph results may be admissible "as substantive evidence of a defendant’s guilt" if they are corroborated by "substantial independent evidence," and noted that several states have permitted a jury to consider polygraph results so long as they are "sufficiently corroborated" "to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
In an early decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Consalvo ruled that polygraph results should be admissible in limited circumstances. Relying on Frye, the court held that if the State has already decided such tests are scientifically reliable, there is no reason the defendant cannot use them as evidence in his favor. The court instructed trial judges to determine whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable before admitting it, and to give the jury a cautionary instruction, telling it not to place too much emphasis on polygraph results. This decision did not survive Daubert.
Admitting polygraph results against the defendant is virtually unheard of. For example, in United States v. Polizzi, the Seventh Circuit explained that "polygraph examinations have been deemed by this court and others to be so unreliable that we have always regarded their admission in criminal trials, upon proper objection . . . as reversible error." The court noted that even its own circuit "has routinely suppressed confessions admitted in violation of a defendant’s rights guaranteed by Miranda where the excludable statements were admitted at trial in order to substantiate a subsequent polygraph examination."
It should be noted that, even as most courts have rejected polygraph results in criminal trials, the Federal Rules of Evidence expressly permit the introduction of polygraph results in civil proceedings, although few courts permit such evidence to come into the courtroom.

Conclusion and Implications of the Law

In conclusion, Polygraph admissibility in courts across the United States has long been a point of contention. While federal courts have generally disallowed its use as evidence in courtrooms, some state courts have acknowledged its potential as a polygraph in cases of employee termination and public safety governance, particularly when related to national security or law enforcement personnel. This creates a disparity in how justice is administered and raises important questions about due process and civil rights.
As discussed in this article, states that currently allow polygraph tests for admission into evidence include Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Some only allow it in limited circumstances, while others allow it in most serious crimes. Furthermore, certain states require a federal law waiver for polygraph tests to be admissible, even in federal courts.
The legal implications of these regulations are vast and can affect everything from individual civil rights to national security interests . In our current political climate, a greater emphasis on national security and terrorism-related threats could increase the demand and use for polygraph tests in courtrooms. It also raises interesting questions about technology in law enforcement and its impact on civil liberties in general.
It’s important to note the fact that the polygraph test is more art than science and is easily manipulated. Depending on the circumstances, a lie detection test may or may not be an accurate reflection of the truth, and implying that the technology is infallible can lead to assumptions that can do irreversible damage.
Currently, it appears that more states and federal courts are beginning to move toward recognizing the polygraph test as a legitimate tool for finding the truth. However, there are some ethical concerns involved with its use, along with concerns about accuracy and manipulation. The future use of polygraphs in state and federal courts is something to watch next.