polygraph test in Alabama

2007In Alabama "both the results of and the fact that a person did or did not take a polygraph test are generally inadmissible." Bostick v. City of Gadsden, 642 So.2d 469, 471 (Ala.Civ.App.1993), aff'd, 642 So.2d 472 (Ala.1994).

2007In Alabama “both the results of and the fact that a person did or did not take a polygraph test are generally inadmissible.” Bostick v. City of Gadsden, 642 So.2d 469, 471 (Ala.Civ.App.1993), aff'd, 642 So.2d 472 (Ala.1994).

1994The Court held that “under the facts of this case, results of the polygraph test given [the employee] were admissible.” Id. at 20 .

1994Id.

2014As the United States Supreme Court has noted, the appellant’s burden to establish that he is entitled to reversal based on an unpre-served error ‘is difficult, “as it should be.” ’ Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,135 , 129 S.Ct. 1423 , 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009) (quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, n. 9 , 124 S.Ct. 2333 , 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004)).” On appeal, the State does not deny the impropriety of testimony or argument concerning a polygraph test.

2014As the United States Supreme Court has noted, the appellant’s burden to establish that he is entitled to reversal based on an unpre-served error ‘is difficult, “as it should be.” ’ Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,135 , 129 S.Ct. 1423 , 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009) (quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83, n. 9 , 124 S.Ct. 2333 , 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004)).” On appeal, the State does not deny the impropriety of testimony or argument concerning a polygraph test.

2014Furthermore, “ ‘both the results of and the fact that a person did or did not take a polygraph test are generally inadmissible.’” A.G., 989 So.2d at 1177 (quoting Bostick v. City of Gadsden, 642 So.2d 469, 471 (Ala.Civ.App.1993)); see also Johnson v. State, 46 Ala.App. 725, 725 , 248 So.2d 763, 764 (Ala.Crim.App.1971) (stating that “[t]he fact of the taking of he detector tests and the result of such tests are not admissible as evidence in this state”).

2014In Ex parte Clements, 447 So.2d 695 (Ala.1984), the defendant, prior to trial, “offered to stipulate to the introduction into evidence of a polygraph examination,” and the State refused to stipulate.

2000Thus, the record amply supports the hearing court's conclusion that the defendant's statements were voluntary." See Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 637 (Fla. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1159 , 116 S.Ct. 1550 , 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996) ("Police are not required to protect detainees from their own unwarranted assumptions, nor are police forbidden to talk about polygraph results with a detainee who has voluntarily taken a lie-detector examination and has validly waived all rights.").

1999Agreeing to take a polygraph examination ordinarily would not run afoul of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

1999Agreeing to take a polygraph examination ordinarily would not run afoul of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

1995In Spellman v. State , 500 So.2d 110 , 115 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986), this court addressed a similar issue.

1994In Logue v. State , 529 So.2d 1064 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), a State's witness testified that she had taken a polygraph test.

1994Responding to the accused's argument in Jones that "[d]efense counsel's failure to object to [the polygraph] testimony . . . prejudiced the Defendant's case to the point that it was incurable by their motion the next day for a mistrial," 439 So.2d at 784 , this Court stated: "[W]e are persuaded that defendant's trial counsel cannot justifiably be charged with inadequate or ineffective representation in what they did or omitted at the time [the witness who said he had taken a polygraph test] was being questioned by the State." *Page 557 439 So.2d at 784-85 .

1994In Jones v. State , 439 So.2d 776 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), a State's witness who — like the Shanks brothers in this case — provided highly incriminating evidence against the accused, testified that he had taken a polygraph test.

1991"The law with regard to the admissibility of a confession is aptly stated in Eakes v. State , 387 So.2d 855 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); " 'A confession is presumed to be involuntary.

1990Cf. State v. Britson , 130 Ariz. 380 , 384 , 636 P.2d 628 , 632 (1981) (offers by the defendant to take a polygraph test, which were "clearly inadmissible on their own, do not become admissible because included in [the defendant's] taped confession"); Pierce v. Commonwealth , 2 Va. App. 383 , 389 , 345 S.E.2d 1 , 4 (1986) (the general rule requiring the admission of a statement in its entirety does not cover those situations "in which part of the statement contains irrelevant and immaterial evidence, which is not admissible").

1990Cf. State v. Britson , 130 Ariz. 380 , 384 , 636 P.2d 628 , 632 (1981) (offers by the defendant to take a polygraph test, which were "clearly inadmissible on their own, do not become admissible because included in [the defendant's] taped confession"); Pierce v. Commonwealth , 2 Va. App. 383 , 389 , 345 S.E.2d 1 , 4 (1986) (the general rule requiring the admission of a statement in its entirety does not cover those situations "in which part of the statement contains irrelevant and immaterial evidence, which is not admissible").

1990Cf. State v. Britson , 130 Ariz. 380 , 384 , 636 P.2d 628 , 632 (1981) (offers by the defendant to take a polygraph test, which were "clearly inadmissible on their own, do not become admissible because included in [the defendant's] taped confession"); Pierce v. Commonwealth , 2 Va. App. 383 , 389 , 345 S.E.2d 1 , 4 (1986) (the general rule requiring the admission of a statement in its entirety does not cover those situations "in which part of the statement contains irrelevant and immaterial evidence, which is not admissible").

1990Cf. State v. Britson , 130 Ariz. 380 , 384 , 636 P.2d 628 , 632 (1981) (offers by the defendant to take a polygraph test, which were "clearly inadmissible on their own, do not become admissible because included in [the defendant's] taped confession"); Pierce v. Commonwealth , 2 Va. App. 383 , 389 , 345 S.E.2d 1 , 4 (1986) (the general rule requiring the admission of a statement in its entirety does not cover those situations "in which part of the statement contains irrelevant and immaterial evidence, which is not admissible").

1988In Montgomery v. Big B, Inc. , 460 So.2d 1286 (Ala. 1984), the Court found that an allegedly defamatory communication made by corporate employees to a polygraph test operator concerning the plaintiff's alleged complicity in a misappropriation of corporate funds fell within this definition.

1987Smith v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co. , 370 So.2d 283 (Ala. 1979); Green v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co. , 446 So.2d 16 (Ala. 1984).

1984Bryant argues that in the courts of this state evidence of a polygraph test and its results are inadmissible unless the parties and the court follow the procedures set out by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Wynn v. State , 423 So.2d 294 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).

1984Co. , 210 Ala. 369 , 371 , 98 So. 290 , 292 (1923).

1984Co. , 210 Ala. 369 , 371 , 98 So. 290 , 292 (1923).

1983HARALSON: We move for a mistrial, Your Honor, on the grounds that the witness, Dewayne Adkins, made reference to having taken a polygraph test which was not responsive to any question asked by anybody that I heard and it's been ruled in Flurry v. State , [ 52 Ala. App. 64 ], 289 So.2d 632 (1973), it's a 1973 case — "THE COURT: What's that citation again?

1983HARALSON: We move for a mistrial, Your Honor, on the grounds that the witness, Dewayne Adkins, made reference to having taken a polygraph test which was not responsive to any question asked by anybody that I heard and it's been ruled in Flurry v. State , [ 52 Ala. App. 64 ], 289 So.2d 632 (1973), it's a 1973 case — "THE COURT: What's that citation again?

1982That the stipulation must be entered into by all parties— the district attorney, the defendant, and the defendant's counsel, and must be a matter of record, either by a filed written document signed by all parties, Cf. Owens v. State, Ind.App., 373 N.E.2d 913 (1978) (State failed to sign), or by an oral agreement of the parties in open court, see State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570, 587 (Iowa 1980), 2.

1975United States v. McDevitt, 6 Cir., 328 F.2d 282 ; Johnson v. State, Fla.App., 166 So.2d 798 ; Commonwealth v. Baity, 428 Pa. 306 , 237 A.2d 172 .