results test in Maryland

2002It is well settled that neither evidence that a polygraph test was taken nor the results of the test are admissible in a criminal proceeding. 5 Guesfeird v. State, 300 Md. 653, 658-59 , 480 A.2d 800 (1984).

2002It is well settled that neither evidence that a polygraph test was taken nor the results of the test are admissible in a criminal proceeding. 5 Guesfeird v. State, 300 Md. 653, 658-59 , 480 A.2d 800 (1984).

1990Drawing on our holdings in Brosan v. Cochran, 307 Md. 662 , 516 A.2d 970 (1986), and Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702 , 481 A.2d 192 (1984), McAvoy argues that ... it follows that *573 the results of a test cannot be admitted unless the record shows the defendant had counsel or voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to counsel.

1990Drawing on our holdings in Brosan v. Cochran, 307 Md. 662 , 516 A.2d 970 (1986), and Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702 , 481 A.2d 192 (1984), McAvoy argues that ... it follows that *573 the results of a test cannot be admitted unless the record shows the defendant had counsel or voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to counsel.

1990Drawing on our holdings in Brosan v. Cochran, 307 Md. 662 , 516 A.2d 970 (1986), and Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702 , 481 A.2d 192 (1984), McAvoy argues that ... it follows that *573 the results of a test cannot be admitted unless the record shows the defendant had counsel or voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to counsel.

1990Drawing on our holdings in Brosan v. Cochran, 307 Md. 662 , 516 A.2d 970 (1986), and Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702 , 481 A.2d 192 (1984), McAvoy argues that ... it follows that *573 the results of a test cannot be admitted unless the record shows the defendant had counsel or voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to counsel.

2019First, at the outset of the opinion, the Court previewed what was to come: We hold that a residential lease agreement, even if the lease agreement has the word seal affixed, is subject to the three-year limitation period enunciated in [ CJ § 5-101 ]. 364 Md. at 422 , 773 A.2d 488 .

2019First, at the outset of the opinion, the Court previewed what was to come: We hold that a residential lease agreement, even if the lease agreement has the word seal affixed, is subject to the three-year limitation period enunciated in [ CJ § 5-101 ]. 364 Md. at 422 , 773 A.2d 488 .

2015Id. at 59 , 782 A.2d 807 .

2015Id. at 59 , 782 A.2d 807 .

2013The Florida appellate court held that particularly where the reference to the lie detector test did not involve any reference to the results of the test, defense counsel’s remarks did not constitute legitimate grounds for mistrial, and even if they “had been improper or erroneous they were not so egregious as to vitiate the entire trial[,]” and “[a]t the very worst a curative instruction would have sufficed to expiate the alleged harm.” McFadden, 540 So.2d at 846 .

2005In Knight, 900 F.Supp. at 296 -300 , for example, the district court rejected plaintiffs' argument that specialized TWI programs that duplicated similar academic offerings at a proximate HBCU should be closed.

2002Indeed, the mere mention of the words “polygraph test” is regarded as so damaging in a criminal prosecution that it has been referred to as a “pariah.” State v. Hawkins, 326 Md. 270, 275 , 604 A.2d 489 (1992).

2002Indeed, the mere mention of the words “polygraph test” is regarded as so damaging in a criminal prosecution that it has been referred to as a “pariah.” State v. Hawkins, 326 Md. 270, 275 , 604 A.2d 489 (1992).

2002Johnson, 31 Md.App. at 307-08 , 355 A.2d 504 .

2002Johnson, 31 Md.App. at 307-08 , 355 A.2d 504 .

2002Murphy, 105 Md.App. at 315-16 , 659 A.2d 384 .

2001Thus, under Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677 , 741 A.2d 1119 (1999), it might go too far.

2001Thus, under Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677 , 741 A.2d 1119 (1999), it might go too far.

2001If the officer fails to comply with that statutory duty the courts in this state have held the person arrested is entitled to an inference at trial that had the test been administered, the results of that test would have been favorable to that person. ([State v. Werkheiser ], 299 Md. 529 , 474 A.2d 898 (19[8]4)).[ 16 ] The trial judge denied the motion, stating: All right.

2001If the officer fails to comply with that statutory duty the courts in this state have held the person arrested is entitled to an inference at trial that had the test been administered, the results of that test would have been favorable to that person. ([State v. Werkheiser ], 299 Md. 529 , 474 A.2d 898 (19[8]4)).[ 16 ] The trial judge denied the motion, stating: All right.

1997In a recent decision, Mangum v. State, 342 Md. 392 , 676 A.2d 80 (1996), we rejected the similar argument that to establish the operability of a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt, the State must introduce the results of a test firing as direct evidence: Petitioner’s arguments implicitly embrace the premise that circumstantial evidence is in some manner inferior to direct evidence.

1997In a recent decision, Mangum v. State, 342 Md. 392 , 676 A.2d 80 (1996), we rejected the similar argument that to establish the operability of a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt, the State must introduce the results of a test firing as direct evidence: Petitioner’s arguments implicitly embrace the premise that circumstantial evidence is in some manner inferior to direct evidence.

1996After a police officer testified that an alternative suspect had taken a polygraph test, did the trial court err in 1) failing to grant a mistrial, or 2) refusing to admit the results of the test? [2] John Staubitz, Jr. had been a state official before his convictions for conspiracy to commit misconduct in office, as well as several other offenses. [3] See, e.g., Brooke v. United States, 385 F.2d 279, 284 (D.C.Cir.1967); United States v. Wilson, 798 F.2d 509, 518-19 (1st Cir.1986); United States v. Bryser, 954 F.2d 79, 87 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 972 , 112 S.Ct. 2939 , 119 L.Ed.2d 564

1996After a police officer testified that an alternative suspect had taken a polygraph test, did the trial court err in 1) failing to grant a mistrial, or 2) refusing to admit the results of the test? [2] John Staubitz, Jr. had been a state official before his convictions for conspiracy to commit misconduct in office, as well as several other offenses. [3] See, e.g., Brooke v. United States, 385 F.2d 279, 284 (D.C.Cir.1967); United States v. Wilson, 798 F.2d 509, 518-19 (1st Cir.1986); United States v. Bryser, 954 F.2d 79, 87 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 972 , 112 S.Ct. 2939 , 119 L.Ed.2d 564

1996After a police officer testified that an alternative suspect had taken a polygraph test, did the trial court err in 1) failing to grant a mistrial, or 2) refusing to admit the results of the test? [2] John Staubitz, Jr. had been a state official before his convictions for conspiracy to commit misconduct in office, as well as several other offenses. [3] See, e.g., Brooke v. United States, 385 F.2d 279, 284 (D.C.Cir.1967); United States v. Wilson, 798 F.2d 509, 518-19 (1st Cir.1986); United States v. Bryser, 954 F.2d 79, 87 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 972 , 112 S.Ct. 2939 , 119 L.Ed.2d 564

1996After a police officer testified that an alternative suspect had taken a polygraph test, did the trial court err in 1) failing to grant a mistrial, or 2) refusing to admit the results of the test? [2] John Staubitz, Jr. had been a state official before his convictions for conspiracy to commit misconduct in office, as well as several other offenses. [3] See, e.g., Brooke v. United States, 385 F.2d 279, 284 (D.C.Cir.1967); United States v. Wilson, 798 F.2d 509, 518-19 (1st Cir.1986); United States v. Bryser, 954 F.2d 79, 87 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 972 , 112 S.Ct. 2939 , 119 L.Ed.2d 564

1996After a police officer testified that an alternative suspect had taken a polygraph test, did the trial court err in 1) failing to grant a mistrial, or 2) refusing to admit the results of the test? [2] John Staubitz, Jr. had been a state official before his convictions for conspiracy to commit misconduct in office, as well as several other offenses. [3] See, e.g., Brooke v. United States, 385 F.2d 279, 284 (D.C.Cir.1967); United States v. Wilson, 798 F.2d 509, 518-19 (1st Cir.1986); United States v. Bryser, 954 F.2d 79, 87 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 972 , 112 S.Ct. 2939 , 119 L.Ed.2d 564