Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Volume 3
Article 6
Issue 2 Summer 1972
1972
Recommended Citation
Lee J. Radek, The Admissibility of Polygraph Results in Criminal Trials: A Case for the Status Quo, 3 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 289 (1972).
Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol3/iss2/6
This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law
Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact law-library@luc.edu.
The Admissibility of Polygraph Results
in Criminal Trials: A Case
for the Status Quo
Lee J. Radek*
In 1923, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that
the results of a lie detection examination were inadmissible as evidence
in court because:
[j]ust when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line be-
tween the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to de-
fine. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the
principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way
in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized sci-
entific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction
is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general
acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.
We think the systolic blood pressure deception test has not yet
gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiologi-
cal and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in ad-
mitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, develop-
ment, and experiments thus far made.'
Since that time, the admissibility of this type of "scientific" evidence
has been reexamined on many occasions. Those arguing that a pro-
gressive increase in accuracy of the polygraph technique should justify
the admission of this evidence in their case have met with little success
in the 49 years following the Frye decision. 2 Most cases which refuse
to admit polygraph results do so on the basis of Frye, but fail to follow
its rationale and examine whether the accuracy of the technique has so
* Mr. Radek is an attorney for The United States Department of Justice, and a
member of the Illinois Bar. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author
and not necessarily those of the Department of Justice.
1. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
2. See 23 ALR 2d 1306.
289
Loyola University Law Journal Vol. 3: 28 9
290
1972 Admissibility of Polygraph Results
suppressed at the time of the false answer with a noted release after the
untruth is given. In reality, however, operators may rely upon any of
these indicators when accompanied by some or none of the others.
In addition to interpretation of the graph, the operator also relies on
various behavior patterns during the test which are indicative of "truth
tellers" or "liars."' He also considers whether there was a deliberate
292
1972 Admissibility of Polygraph Results
7. "[A] system is set up where remote supervision can be exercised over examin-
ers where the person that is reviewing the work of another examiner does not have to
have been there during the time of the actual examination. In other words, the degree
of standardization has been worked toward and I feel now achieved to where one ex-
pert in the field should adequately be able to read the charts of another expert with
no significant deviation so far as their conclusions are concerned." Testimony of
Cleve Backster at hearing in the nature of an offer of proof in the military trial of
CPT Medina, p.24.
Mr. Backster, who conducts many tests and operates a school for polygraph
operators in New York City, is also well known for his theories that plants com-
municate and feel emotions. He has demonstrated this theory on several television
shows by attaching the Galvanic Skin Response electrodes to plant leaves and then
threatening them with fire or a scissors. This activity has resulted in a threat of ex-
pulsion from the American Polygraph Association. (See New York Times, Mon.,
Nov. 22, 1971, § 6 at 45).
293
Loyola University Law Journal Vol. 3: 28 9
8. E.g.:
-- "The pretest interview affords the examiner an opportunity to 'size up' the
subject and thereby prepare more meaningful and understandable test questions than
would be the case if routinely done without reference to the particular subject to be
tested." REID & INBAU, supra, n.2 at 16.
-"Where the previous line of questioning produces tentative indications of deceptions,
the examiner should then suggest the possibility of the occurrences being the result
of an accident .. ." Id. at 14.
-- "Pretest questions of this type are good 'bait' for the lying subject." id.
"In his search for an effective control question the examiner will take into con-
sideration the behavior symptoms which a subject may display as he is being ques-
tioned about the controls under consideration for use during the test. For instance, if
a question that the examiner has in mind for a control is asked a subject and he hesi-
tates with his 'no' answer, or looks away from the examiner, or squirms around in the
chair, crosses or uncrosses his legs, or brushes his clothes with his hand, any one of
these actions will be suggestive of the effectiveness of that question for control pur-
poses; in other words it is a question that is a bothersome one." Id. at 125.
9. Skolnick, Scientific Theory and Scientific Evidence: An Analysis of Lie-Detec-
tion, 70 YALE L.J. 694, 707 (1961).
10. In the April 8, 1964 edition of the Los Angeles Times, Prof. Fred Inbau was
quoted as saying: "Eighty per cent of the people who administer tests do not measure
up to standards we feel are required." 50 A.B.A.J. 1130.
11. See 32 AIR 3d 1324.
294
1972 Admissibility of Polygraph Results
might wish other clients to take an examination; and that those unqual-
fied examiners who usually find that an accused has lied would receive
much business from the prosecution.
Another contention of lie detection proponents in relation to the
unqualified examiner is that the method of cross-examination is a suf-
ficient tool to point out to a jury the inadequacies of these operators.
However, since the industry itself cannot agree on what qualifications
are needed to insure competency in an examiner, it would seem un-
likely that all unqualified operators would be exposed to a jury through
this technique. 1 2 Cross-examination would also result in the side ef-
fect of confusing the jury.
Possibly the most insurmountable drawback involved in the admis-
sion of Polygraph evidence is its great prejudicial effect upon a jury.
Our society, with its deep respect for limitless technology, tends to be-
lieve that machines do not lie, and to listen to a machine more than the
opinion of an expert. This fact, along with the myth of a machine in
295
Loyola University Law Journal Vol. 3: 289
which a giant red light with the word "LIE" emblazoned across it ig-
nites to the chagrin of the evil villian who has attempted a falsehood,
tends to cause the average man to place a credence in the infallibility
of a lie detector which it does not deserve. At most, Polygraph ex-
amination is entitled to status of any other expert testimony of opinion.
It is the expert who makes the determination of lie or truth and the
machine is only one tool which he is taught to use in making this de-
cision. It is doubtful that an instruction along these lines would suf-
ficiently impress upon a jury the fact that there really is no such ma-
chine as a "lie detector." Indeed, the admission into evidence of Poly-
graph results accompanied by such instructions would put the courts
on the horns of a new dilemma. Much of the high degree of accuracy
claimed by proponents of the Polygraph is dependent upon the sub-
ject's sincere belief that the machine is infallible. In fact, examiners
are instructed to be certain to impress upon their subjects before the
test that "the machine does not lie.' 1 3 On the other hand, for this type
of evidence to be properly admissible without undue prejudice, it would
be necessary to establish, in the minds of the public, that the machine,
in fact, is only a tool in the hands of a fallible expert. To establish
this knowledge, however, would decrease the accuracy of the Poly-
graph technique proportionately.
The highly prejudicial character of Polygraph evidence is also due to
its very nature. Testimony of a Polygraph operator will most often be
the determinative factor in a case. Traditionally, it has always been
the function of a jury to base its finding of fact upon credibility of wit-
nesses. Polygraph evidence, unlike other evidence of credibility and
impeachment, does not merely aid the jury in this determination, but
purports to decide veracity as to the crucial issue in a case. The ad-
mission of such evidence would replace the most vital present function
of a jury with a "trial by lie detection." It is this fact which distin-
guishes Polygraph evidence from other types of scientific tests. Be-
cause lie detection would so often be solely determinative of the central
13. Skolnick, supra note 9, at 704-5; INBAU & REI, LIE DETECTION AND
CRIMINAL INTERROGATION, 15 (3rd ed. 1953); and the following from REI & INBAU,
supra n.2.
-"Upon completion of all instrument adjustments, the examiner again should say
to the subject: 'If you're telling the truth the lie detector will show it; if you're not, it
will show that too.'" Id. at 26, and
-"All of the subsequent case illustrations regarding the application of the various
'stimulation' procedures establish that unless a person is concerned over the possi-
bility that his deception will be detected, his Polygraph records will not disclose
that deception." Id. at 50.
296
1972 Admissibility of Polygraph Results
issue in a case, its admissibility must depend upon a much higher degree
of accuracy than other forms of tests and conclusions.
It is the accuracy of the Polygraph technique which has most often
been examined by the bench and bar, and which has been most strong-
ly defended by Polygraph proponents. Despite numerous recent claims
of high accuracy and susceptibility to objective review, there remain
some serious doubts as to whether lie detection has become so accurate
as to warrant its admission into evidence. Figures vary as to how ac-
curate the technique is in actual practice,1 4 but attempts at scientific
evaluation reduced to percentage of accuracy are highly questionable.
Lie detection does not lend itself to mathematical evaluation of ac-
curacy for several reasons.
Due to the subject matter of lie detection interrogations, many situa-
tions will arise in which it may never become known whether or not the
subject was definitely lying, or whether he was telling the truth. Many
"surveys" base their accuracy figures on examinations which are sub-
sequently verified by confessions. 5 Even confessions, however, are
not guaranteed evidence of undoubted guilt. On the other hand, an
acquittal or dismissal of a criminal charge is obviously not absolute
evidence that the accused did not commit the act, or that he told the
truth. Since final and infallible determination as to whether or not the
lie detection test was accurate is impossible, a true quantitative analysis
of accuracy is also impossible.
Even if true percentage figures were ascertainable, such figures can
be misleading. As one commentator notes, even if the claims of lead-
ing proponents that the Polygraph technique is 95% accurate are
true, a great number of errors in a given sample may occur. To dem-
onstrate this the following example is given: If 1,000 subjects were
given the exam, and if 25 of those attempted to lie, and if the ma-
chine were 95% accurate, then the results would show (.95 x 25 =)
24 liars, with one "beating the machine"; and (.05 x 975 =) 49 truth
tellers erroneously called liars.'" As emphasized above, when the re-
298
1972 Admissibility of Polygraph Results
299
Loyola University Law Journal Vol. 3: 289
300
1972 Admissibility of Polygraph Results
24. "We profess no infallibility for the Polygraph Technique.... ".REID & IN-
BAU, supra note 2, at v.
Loyola University Law Journal Vol. 3: 28 9
302
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL
Editor-in-Chief
BRIAN R. MCKILLIP
Associate Editors
THOMAS P. CARNEY, JR. MICHAEL D. GROARK RONALD P. KANE
Members
Faculty Advisor
RICHARD A. MICHAEL
303