Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
40 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1963–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sullivan v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Sullivan v. State, 303 So.2d 632, 635 (Fla.1974) (declining to reverse even though the witness referred to a polygraph test and noting “that the witness never referred to the actual results of the polygraph test in any manner”). 2010Likewise in Sullivan, 303 So.2d 632, 634 (Fla.1974), the witness explained that his negotiated life sentence in return for testifying against the defendant was contingent on having taken and passed a polygraph test. | 3 | 4 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1264 , 104 S.Ct. 3559 , 82 L.Ed.2d 860 (1984); Davis v. State, 520 So.2d 572 (Fla.1988); Jones v. State, 453 So.2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (results of a polygraph examination, absent consent by both state and defendant, are inadmissible into evidence because they have not been shown to be reliable; the same rule applies even when the results appear to be favorable to the defendant); State v. Camacho, 661 So.2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (trial court committed reversible error in dismissing information on the sole ground of defendant 1995Robinson; Perez; see Davis v. State, 520 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla.1988). | 2 | 3 |
DeVito v. Civil Service Commissiongreen2 sentences1981See Stape v. Civil Service Comm. of City of Philadelphia, 404 Pa. 354 , 172 A.2d 161 . 1963See Stape v. Civil Service Comm. of City of Philadelphia, 404 Pa. 354 , 172 A.2d 161 . | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2013The court found no error with admitting the confession into evidence because “[t]here is no requirement of additional warnings during the same period of interrogation where it is clear detainees are aware of their rights.” Id. at 642. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Garciagreen1 sentence2008Richardson is cited with approval in People v. Garcia, 169 P.3d 223, 228 (Colo.Ct.App.), cert. denied, No. 07SC521, 2007 WL 2822534 (Colo.2007), where the prosecutor asked the defendant to take a polygraph test to help resolve the case. | 1 | 1 |
Meade v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See, e.g., Meade v. State, 799 So.2d 430, 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(holding that probation could not be revoked for defendant’s failure to pay for a polygraph test as this was not a condition of probation); Wright v. State, 687 So.2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(holding that probation could not be revoked for defendant’s failure to undergo DNA testing where probation order did not require such testing). | 1 | 1 |
Burgin v. Stategreen1 sentence2001"A violation which triggers a revocation of probation must be `willful and substantial.'" Burgin v. State, 623 So.2d 575, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Lane v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Lane v. State, 762 So.2d 560, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); cf. Wright v. State, 687 So.2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (alleged probation violation based on defendant's failure to undergo DNA testing as instructed by his probation officer could not be considered at probation revocation hearing when original probation order did not require defendant to submit to DNA testing). | 1 | 1 |
Dragovich v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., Dragovich, 492 So.2d at 353 (holding that appellant's allegation that trial judge had a fixed opinion about appellant because judge presided over trial of appellant's codefendant did not establish actual bias or prejudice so as to create a reasonable fear that a fair trial could not be had). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burkegreen2 sentences1995Accord State v. Fogarty, 187 Mont. 393 , 610 P.2d 140 (1980), overruled by State v. Burke, 235 Mont. 165 , 766 P.2d 254 (1988). 1995Accord State v. Fogarty, 187 Mont. 393 , 610 P.2d 140 (1980), overruled by State v. Burke, 235 Mont. 165 , 766 P.2d 254 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Russell v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pereira v. Pereiragreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Jorngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fogartyred2 sentences1995Accord State v. Fogarty, 187 Mont. 393 , 610 P.2d 140 (1980), overruled by State v. Burke, 235 Mont. 165 , 766 P.2d 254 (1988). 1995Accord State v. Fogarty, 187 Mont. 393 , 610 P.2d 140 (1980), overruled by State v. Burke, 235 Mont. 165 , 766 P.2d 254 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. State
neutral
2 sentences2003See, e.g., Meade v. State, 799 So.2d 430, 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(holding that probation could not be revoked for defendant’s failure to pay for a polygraph test as this was not a condition of probation); Wright v. State, 687 So.2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(holding that probation could not be revoked for defendant’s failure to undergo DNA testing where probation order did not require such testing). 2001See Lane v. State, 762 So.2d 560, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); cf. Wright v. State, 687 So.2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (alleged probation violation based on defendant's failure to undergo DNA testing as instructed by his probation officer could not be considered at probation revocation hearing when original probation order did not require defendant to submit to DNA testing). | 2 | 2001–2003 |
Frye v. United States
red
2 sentences1996Id. at 1533 . 1995Id. at 1533 . | 2 | 1995–1996 |
Farmer v. City of Fort Lauderdale
green
2 sentences1987The decisions in Valley Vendors, Inc. v. Jamieson, 129 Ariz. 238 , 630 P.2d 61 (App. 1981), City of Dallas v. Texas Employment Comm., 626 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. App. 1981), and Charles Livingston and Sons, Inc. v. Constance, 115 Ohio App. 437 , 185 N.E.2d 655 (1961), did not involve pre-employment agreements to submit to a polygraph examination as a condition of employment. [2] Finally, in Farmer v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 427 So.2d 187 (Fla. 1983), the court discussed the propriety of conducting polygraph examinations on public officials, however the case did not involve a preemployment agreement 1985Farmer v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 427 So.2d 187 (Fla. 1983). | 2 | 1985–1987 |
Anderson v. State
green
2 sentences1983On tangential issues, courts of this state have held that the mention at trial that a witness was asked to take a polygraph test raised an impermissible inference *190 of witness credibility, Crawford v. State, 321 So.2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), that no presumption adverse to an individual failing to submit to a test can be drawn, City of Miami v. Jervis, 139 So.2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); that a jury can give exculpatory polygraph test evidence admitted upon stipulation whatever weight it chooses and can convict on the basis of other incriminatory evidence, Coney v. State, 258 So.2d 497 (Fla. 1974NOTES [1] See Anderson v. State, 241 So.2d 390 (Fla. 1970), in which we held that defense counsel was not entitled to written results of a polygraph test given a co-defendant under the favorable evidence doctrine of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1968). [2] Coral Gables v. Levison, 220 So.2d 430 (Fla. App.3d 1969); Gagnon v. State, 212 So.2d 337 (Fla.App.3d 1968). [1] 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 . [1] At footnote 12 of the plurality opinion by Mr. Justice Harlan, the following dictum is found: "... [W]here a defendant's mistrial motion is nec | 2 | 1974–1983 |
Migliore v. City of Lauderhill
green
2 sentences2010Id. 2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Thompkins
neutral
1 sentence2006In State v. Thompkins, 891 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), the Fourth District quashed an order that would have allowed the defendant to introduce the results of the victim's polygraph test. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Simeon v. State
green
2 sentences2001In the case relied on by the defendant, Simeon v. State, 520 So.2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the State witness had taken a polygraph test and told the jury so. 2001Id. at 82-83 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Cassamassima v. State
green
1 sentence1996Cassamassima v. State, 657 So.2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence1996Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1264 , 104 S.Ct. 3559 , 82 L.Ed.2d 860 (1984); Davis v. State, 520 So.2d 572 (Fla.1988); Jones v. State, 453 So.2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (results of a polygraph examination, absent consent by both state and defendant, are inadmissible into evidence because they have not been shown to be reliable; the same rule applies even when the results appear to be favorable to the defendant); State v. Camacho, 661 So.2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (trial court committed reversible error in dismissing information on the sole ground of defendant | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Otero v. State
neutral
1 sentence1996Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1264 , 104 S.Ct. 3559 , 82 L.Ed.2d 860 (1984); Davis v. State, 520 So.2d 572 (Fla.1988); Jones v. State, 453 So.2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (results of a polygraph examination, absent consent by both state and defendant, are inadmissible into evidence because they have not been shown to be reliable; the same rule applies even when the results appear to be favorable to the defendant); State v. Camacho, 661 So.2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (trial court committed reversible error in dismissing information on the sole ground of defendant | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Delap v. State
green
1 sentence1996Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1264 , 104 S.Ct. 3559 , 82 L.Ed.2d 860 (1984); Davis v. State, 520 So.2d 572 (Fla.1988); Jones v. State, 453 So.2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (results of a polygraph examination, absent consent by both state and defendant, are inadmissible into evidence because they have not been shown to be reliable; the same rule applies even when the results appear to be favorable to the defendant); State v. Camacho, 661 So.2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (trial court committed reversible error in dismissing information on the sole ground of defendant | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Barbara
green
2 sentences1996Although not cited by the state in the instant case, a case often cited as authority for the proposition that polygraph evidence may be admitted in a trial court’s discretion in the non-trial setting of a motion for new trial is People v. Barbara, 400 Mich. 352 , 255 N.W.2d 171 (Mich.1977). 1996Although not cited by the state in the instant case, a case often cited as authority for the proposition that polygraph evidence may be admitted in a trial court’s discretion in the non-trial setting of a motion for new trial is People v. Barbara, 400 Mich. 352 , 255 N.W.2d 171 (Mich.1977). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Evans v. Mississippi
green
1 sentence1996Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1264 , 104 S.Ct. 3559 , 82 L.Ed.2d 860 (1984); Davis v. State, 520 So.2d 572 (Fla.1988); Jones v. State, 453 So.2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (results of a polygraph examination, absent consent by both state and defendant, are inadmissible into evidence because they have not been shown to be reliable; the same rule applies even when the results appear to be favorable to the defendant); State v. Camacho, 661 So.2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (trial court committed reversible error in dismissing information on the sole ground of defendant | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Sanson v. United States
green
1 sentence1996Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1264 , 104 S.Ct. 3559 , 82 L.Ed.2d 860 (1984); Davis v. State, 520 So.2d 572 (Fla.1988); Jones v. State, 453 So.2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (results of a polygraph examination, absent consent by both state and defendant, are inadmissible into evidence because they have not been shown to be reliable; the same rule applies even when the results appear to be favorable to the defendant); State v. Camacho, 661 So.2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (trial court committed reversible error in dismissing information on the sole ground of defendant | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Julio Piccinonna
green
1 sentence1994Polygraph test results are admissible in some courts, see United States v. Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir.1989), but they are not admissible in Florida courts and any allegation of a probation violation based upon what occurred during the administration of the lie detector test would simply be inadmissible. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Hammersmith, Inc. v. Zanfardino
green
1 sentence1992In Hammersmith, Inc. v. Zanfardino, 425 So.2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), review denied, 436 So.2d 101 (Fla. 1983), the district court denied compensability where a claimant died as a result of a ruptured aorta, which medical testimony showed was related to a polygraph examination administered to the claimant during an investigation of pilferage, and stated: While being wired for and taking a polygraph test might be characterized as non-routine, the evidence clearly showed that there was nothing in the test which could be described as a physical overexertion.... | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Davis v. State
green
1 sentence1991Hansbrough v. State, 509 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1987); Davis v. State, 461 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 913 , 105 S.Ct. 3540 , 87 L.Ed.2d 663 (1985); Sullivan v. State, 303 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1974), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911 , 96 S.Ct. 3226 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1220 (1976). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Hansbrough v. State green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Pulliam v. Georgia
green
1 sentence1991Hansbrough v. State, 509 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1987); Davis v. State, 461 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 913 , 105 S.Ct. 3540 , 87 L.Ed.2d 663 (1985); Sullivan v. State, 303 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1974), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911 , 96 S.Ct. 3226 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1220 (1976). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Davis v. Florida
green
2 sentences1991Hansbrough v. State, 509 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1987); Davis v. State, 461 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 913 , 105 S.Ct. 3540 , 87 L.Ed.2d 663 (1985); Sullivan v. State, 303 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1974), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911 , 96 S.Ct. 3226 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1220 (1976). 1991Hansbrough v. State, 509 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1987); Davis v. State, 461 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 913 , 105 S.Ct. 3540 , 87 L.Ed.2d 663 (1985); Sullivan v. State, 303 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1974), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911 , 96 S.Ct. 3226 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1220 (1976). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Gonzalez-Mares v. United States green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| State v. Perez neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Schmunk v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Green green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Mills v. People green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Vaughn v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| In the Interest of S.T.N. v. State neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Frazier v. Cupp green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Burch v. State green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Valley Vendors, Inc. v. Jamieson green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| City of Dallas v. Texas Employment Commission green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Kaminski v. State green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Charles Livingston & Sons, Inc. v. Constance green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Henderson v. State neutral | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Coursey v. Board Fire & Police Com'rs of Skokie green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| City of Miami v. Jervis green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Gardner v. Broderick green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Richardson v. City of Pasadena green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Coney v. State green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Crawford v. State green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.