lie detector test in Michigan

2020Pursuant to MCL 776.21(5), “[a] defendant who allegedly has committed a crime under [the criminal sexual conduct statutes] shall be given a polygraph examination or lie detector test if the defendant requests it.” In People v Walker, 24 Mich App 360, 361-362 ; 180 NW2d 193 (1970), aff’d 385 Mich 596 (1971), the trial court knew that the defendant had taken and failed a lie detector test and thereafter accepted the defendant’s waiver of a jury trial.

2020Pursuant to MCL 776.21(5), “[a] defendant who allegedly has committed a crime under [the criminal sexual conduct statutes] shall be given a polygraph examination or lie detector test if the defendant requests it.” In People v Walker, 24 Mich App 360, 361-362 ; 180 NW2d 193 (1970), aff’d 385 Mich 596 (1971), the trial court knew that the defendant had taken and failed a lie detector test and thereafter accepted the defendant’s waiver of a jury trial.

2020Pursuant to MCL 776.21(5), “[a] defendant who allegedly has committed a crime under [the criminal sexual conduct statutes] shall be given a polygraph examination or lie detector test if the defendant requests it.” In People v Walker, 24 Mich App 360, 361-362 ; 180 NW2d 193 (1970), aff’d 385 Mich 596 (1971), the trial court knew that the defendant had taken and failed a lie detector test and thereafter accepted the defendant’s waiver of a jury trial.

1974In People v Frazier Walker, 385 Mich 596 ; 189 NW2d 41 (1971), this Court adopted the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 24 Mich App 360 ; 180 NW2d 193 (1970), reversing a conviction where the judge in a non-jury trial had interrogated witnesses in defendant’s absence and had knowledge that he had taken a lie detector test.

2017Specifically, the police recovered a manual about how to successfully take a lie detector test in defendant’s truck, defendant’s friend said that defendant showed him a copy of the manual in February or March 2012, and defendant’s girlfriend said that she observed that defendant had searched about how to defeat a lie detector test on their computer and had printed out a document on the topic. “[T]he results of a polygraph examination are not admissible at trial.” People v Ray, 431 Mich 260, 265 ; 430 NW2d 626 (1988).

2017Specifically, the police recovered a manual about how to successfully take a lie detector test in defendant’s truck, defendant’s friend said that defendant showed him a copy of the manual in February or March 2012, and defendant’s girlfriend said that she observed that defendant had searched about how to defeat a lie detector test on their computer and had printed out a document on the topic. “[T]he results of a polygraph examination are not admissible at trial.” People v Ray, 431 Mich 260, 265 ; 430 NW2d 626 (1988).

1974In People v Frazier Walker, 385 Mich 596 ; 189 NW2d 41 (1971), this Court adopted the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 24 Mich App 360 ; 180 NW2d 193 (1970), reversing a conviction where the judge in a non-jury trial had interrogated witnesses in defendant's absence and had knowledge that he had taken a lie detector test.

1974In People v Frazier Walker, 385 Mich 596 ; 189 NW2d 41 (1971), this Court adopted the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 24 Mich App 360 ; 180 NW2d 193 (1970), reversing a conviction where the judge in a non-jury trial had interrogated witnesses in defendant’s absence and had knowledge that he had taken a lie detector test.

1976Many are concerned with defendant’s attempt to introduce proofs that he passed a lie-detector test when questioned as to his present story, People v Becker, supra, People v Ignofo, 315 Mich 626, 641 ; 24 NW2d 514 (1946), People v Davies, supra, People v McLaughlin, 3 Mich App 391 ; 142 NW2d 484 (1966), People v Mattison, 26 Mich App 453, 461 ; 182 NW2d 604 (1970), People v Levelston, 54 Mich App 477 ; 221 NW2d 235 (1974).

1976Many are concerned with defendant’s attempt to introduce proofs that he passed a lie-detector test when questioned as to his present story, People v Becker, supra, People v Ignofo, 315 Mich 626, 641 ; 24 NW2d 514 (1946), People v Davies, supra, People v McLaughlin, 3 Mich App 391 ; 142 NW2d 484 (1966), People v Mattison, 26 Mich App 453, 461 ; 182 NW2d 604 (1970), People v Levelston, 54 Mich App 477 ; 221 NW2d 235 (1974).

2024An additional canine officer 4 Amicus cites to People v Kulpinski, 243 Mich App 8 ; 620 NW2d 537 (2000), in which the court held the fact that the defendant was on a cot [in a hospital] wearing a neck brace when briefly spoken to by a police officer does “not constitute the significant type of restraint required to render him ‘in custody’ for purposes of Miranda warnings.” Id. at 25 , citing People v Peerenboom 224 Mich App 195, 197-198 , 568 NW2d 153 (1997).

2024An additional canine officer 4 Amicus cites to People v Kulpinski, 243 Mich App 8 ; 620 NW2d 537 (2000), in which the court held the fact that the defendant was on a cot [in a hospital] wearing a neck brace when briefly spoken to by a police officer does “not constitute the significant type of restraint required to render him ‘in custody’ for purposes of Miranda warnings.” Id. at 25 , citing People v Peerenboom 224 Mich App 195, 197-198 , 568 NW2d 153 (1997).

2024An additional canine officer 4 Amicus cites to People v Kulpinski, 243 Mich App 8 ; 620 NW2d 537 (2000), in which the court held the fact that the defendant was on a cot [in a hospital] wearing a neck brace when briefly spoken to by a police officer does “not constitute the significant type of restraint required to render him ‘in custody’ for purposes of Miranda warnings.” Id. at 25 , citing People v Peerenboom 224 Mich App 195, 197-198 , 568 NW2d 153 (1997).

2024An additional canine officer 4 Amicus cites to People v Kulpinski, 243 Mich App 8 ; 620 NW2d 537 (2000), in which the court held the fact that the defendant was on a cot [in a hospital] wearing a neck brace when briefly spoken to by a police officer does “not constitute the significant type of restraint required to render him ‘in custody’ for purposes of Miranda warnings.” Id. at 25 , citing People v Peerenboom 224 Mich App 195, 197-198 , 568 NW2d 153 (1997).

2022People v Ortiz-Kehoe, 237 Mich App 508, 514 ; 603 NW2d 802 (1999).

2022People v Ortiz-Kehoe, 237 Mich App 508, 514 ; 603 NW2d 802 (1999).

2001“Convictions have been reversed where the fact of taking a polygraph examination or its results were introduced to bolster a witness’s credibility.” People v Jansson, 116 Mich App 674, 695 ; 323 NW2d 508 (1982), citing People v Scotts, 80 Mich App 1 ; 263 NW2d 272 (1977).

2001“Convictions have been reversed where the fact of taking a polygraph examination or its results were introduced to bolster a witness’s credibility.” People v Jansson, 116 Mich App 674, 695 ; 323 NW2d 508 (1982), citing People v Scotts, 80 Mich App 1 ; 263 NW2d 272 (1977).

2001“Convictions have been reversed where the fact of taking a polygraph examination or its results were introduced to bolster a witness’s credibility.” People v Jansson, 116 Mich App 674, 695 ; 323 NW2d 508 (1982), citing People v Scotts, 80 Mich App 1 ; 263 NW2d 272 (1977).

2001“Convictions have been reversed where the fact of taking a polygraph examination or its results were introduced to bolster a witness’s credibility.” People v Jansson, 116 Mich App 674, 695 ; 323 NW2d 508 (1982), citing People v Scotts, 80 Mich App 1 ; 263 NW2d 272 (1977).

1986I would adopt the reasoning of the court in State v Mueller, 344 NW2d 262 (Iowa App, 1983), in which the court considered statements made to a child psychologist by a three-year-old as well as the son's nonverbal conduct with dolls that the psychologist interpreted as a sex act by the father in a criminal case.

1986I would adopt the reasoning of the court in State v Mueller, 344 NW2d 262 (Iowa App, 1983), in which the court considered statements made to a child psychologist by a three-year-old as well as the son’s nonverbal conduct with dolls that the psychologist interpreted as a sex act by the father in a criminal case.

1977In People v Reagan, supra, defendant sought to hold the prosecutor to his agreement that he would not prosecute defendant if defendant took and passed a lie detector test.

1977In People v Reagan, supra , defendant sought to hold the prosecutor to his agreement that he would not prosecute defendant if defendant took and passed a lie detector test.

1976Others concern the attempts of the prosecutor to ask a prosecution witness if he or she took a polygraph test to verify his or her present testimony, People v Brocato, 17 Mich App 277, 291-292 ; 169 NW2d 483 (1969), People v Lawson, 48 Mich App 662 ; 211 NW2d 96 (1973).

1976Others concern the attempts of the prosecutor to ask a prosecution witness if he or she took a polygraph test to verify his or her present testimony, People v Brocato, 17 Mich App 277, 291-292 ; 169 NW2d 483 (1969), People v Lawson, 48 Mich App 662 ; 211 NW2d 96 (1973).

1976Many are concerned with defendant’s attempt to introduce proofs that he passed a lie-detector test when questioned as to his present story, People v Becker, supra, People v Ignofo, 315 Mich 626, 641 ; 24 NW2d 514 (1946), People v Davies, supra, People v McLaughlin, 3 Mich App 391 ; 142 NW2d 484 (1966), People v Mattison, 26 Mich App 453, 461 ; 182 NW2d 604 (1970), People v Levelston, 54 Mich App 477 ; 221 NW2d 235 (1974).

1976Many are concerned with defendant’s attempt to introduce proofs that he passed a lie-detector test when questioned as to his present story, People v Becker, supra, People v Ignofo, 315 Mich 626, 641 ; 24 NW2d 514 (1946), People v Davies, supra, People v McLaughlin, 3 Mich App 391 ; 142 NW2d 484 (1966), People v Mattison, 26 Mich App 453, 461 ; 182 NW2d 604 (1970), People v Levelston, 54 Mich App 477 ; 221 NW2d 235 (1974).

1976Many are concerned with defendant’s attempt to introduce proofs that he passed a lie-detector test when questioned as to his present story, People v Becker, supra, People v Ignofo, 315 Mich 626, 641 ; 24 NW2d 514 (1946), People v Davies, supra, People v McLaughlin, 3 Mich App 391 ; 142 NW2d 484 (1966), People v Mattison, 26 Mich App 453, 461 ; 182 NW2d 604 (1970), People v Levelston, 54 Mich App 477 ; 221 NW2d 235 (1974).

1976Many are concerned with defendant’s attempt to introduce proofs that he passed a lie-detector test when questioned as to his present story, People v Becker, supra, People v Ignofo, 315 Mich 626, 641 ; 24 NW2d 514 (1946), People v Davies, supra, People v McLaughlin, 3 Mich App 391 ; 142 NW2d 484 (1966), People v Mattison, 26 Mich App 453, 461 ; 182 NW2d 604 (1970), People v Levelston, 54 Mich App 477 ; 221 NW2d 235 (1974).

1976In Mattox v State, 240 Miss 544; 128 So 2d 368 (1961), and Kaminski v State, 63 So 2d 339 (Fla, 1953), cert den, 348 US 832 ; 75 S Ct 55 ; 99 L Ed 656 (1954), a prosecution witness was improperly asked if he took a lie-detector test with respect to the testimony given at trial. 2 Despite the distinguishing aspects of most of the polygraph cases, we do not feel that we should carve out an exception for this type of intentional reference to polygraph test results. 3 The most recent Michigan Supreme Court case on polygraph testimony states that "the results of lie-detector tests are inadmissible”

1976In Mattox v State, 240 Miss 544; 128 So 2d 368 (1961), and Kaminski v State, 63 So 2d 339 (Fla, 1953), cert den, 348 US 832 ; 75 S Ct 55 ; 99 L Ed 656 (1954), a prosecution witness was improperly asked if he took a lie-detector test with respect to the testimony given at trial. 2 Despite the distinguishing aspects of most of the polygraph cases, we do not feel that we should carve out an exception for this type of intentional reference to polygraph test results. 3 The most recent Michigan Supreme Court case on polygraph testimony states that "the results of lie-detector tests are inadmissible”

1976In Mattox v State, 240 Miss 544; 128 So 2d 368 (1961), and Kaminski v State, 63 So 2d 339 (Fla, 1953), cert den, 348 US 832 ; 75 S Ct 55 ; 99 L Ed 656 (1954), a prosecution witness was improperly asked if he took a lie-detector test with respect to the testimony given at trial. 2 Despite the distinguishing aspects of most of the polygraph cases, we do not feel that we should carve out an exception for this type of intentional reference to polygraph test results. 3 The most recent Michigan Supreme Court case on polygraph testimony states that "the results of lie-detector tests are inadmissible”

1976Such attempts to bolster the current testimony of the witness have been held to be improper, People v Paul F Baker, 7 Mich App 471 ; 152 NW2d 43 (1967), People v Bush, 54 Mich App 77 ; 220 NW2d 333 (1974). 1 The cases cited by defendant from other jurisdictions also fall neatly within this pattern.

1976Such attempts to bolster the current testimony of the witness have been held to be improper, People v Paul F Baker, 7 Mich App 471 ; 152 NW2d 43 (1967), People v Bush, 54 Mich App 77 ; 220 NW2d 333 (1974). 1 The cases cited by defendant from other jurisdictions also fall neatly within this pattern.

1976Such attempts to bolster the current testimony of the witness have been held to be improper, People v Paul F Baker, 7 Mich App 471 ; 152 NW2d 43 (1967), People v Bush, 54 Mich App 77 ; 220 NW2d 333 (1974). 1 The cases cited by defendant from other jurisdictions also fall neatly within this pattern.

1976Such attempts to bolster the current testimony of the witness have been held to be improper, People v Paul F Baker, 7 Mich App 471 ; 152 NW2d 43 (1967), People v Bush, 54 Mich App 77 ; 220 NW2d 333 (1974). 1 The cases cited by defendant from other jurisdictions also fall neatly within this pattern.

1976Many are concerned with defendant’s attempt to introduce proofs that he passed a lie-detector test when questioned as to his present story, People v Becker, supra, People v Ignofo, 315 Mich 626, 641 ; 24 NW2d 514 (1946), People v Davies, supra, People v McLaughlin, 3 Mich App 391 ; 142 NW2d 484 (1966), People v Mattison, 26 Mich App 453, 461 ; 182 NW2d 604 (1970), People v Levelston, 54 Mich App 477 ; 221 NW2d 235 (1974).

1976Many are concerned with defendant’s attempt to introduce proofs that he passed a lie-detector test when questioned as to his present story, People v Becker, supra, People v Ignofo, 315 Mich 626, 641 ; 24 NW2d 514 (1946), People v Davies, supra, People v McLaughlin, 3 Mich App 391 ; 142 NW2d 484 (1966), People v Mattison, 26 Mich App 453, 461 ; 182 NW2d 604 (1970), People v Levelston, 54 Mich App 477 ; 221 NW2d 235 (1974).

1973In People v Sinclair, 21 Mich App 255 ; 175 NW2d 893 (1970), this Court found it error for the lower court to discuss the results of a lie detector test of the alleged guilty party at a hearing on the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

1973In People v Sinclair, 21 Mich App 255 ; 175 NW2d 893 (1970), this Court found it error for the lower court to discuss the results of a lie detector test of the alleged guilty party at a hearing on the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

1970All concurred. 1 See, generally, People v. Hartwick (1967), 8 Mich App 193 ; People v. McLaughlin (1966), 3 Mich App 391 . 2 See, generally, People v. David Smith (1969), 16 Mich App 198 . 3 In Frechette , clear prejudice was evidenced in the extensive testimony regarding the reliability of a lie deteetor test, the testimony of an expert that defendant had been given a lie-detector test and in the expert’s statement that he had formed an opinion regarding the truthfulness of defendant’s answers.

1970All concurred. 1 See, generally, People v. Hartwick (1967), 8 Mich App 193 ; People v. McLaughlin (1966), 3 Mich App 391 . 2 See, generally, People v. David Smith (1969), 16 Mich App 198 . 3 In Frechette , clear prejudice was evidenced in the extensive testimony regarding the reliability of a lie deteetor test, the testimony of an expert that defendant had been given a lie-detector test and in the expert’s statement that he had formed an opinion regarding the truthfulness of defendant’s answers.

1968Speaking of the lie detector, the Court in People v. Davis, supra, stated (p 372): *69 “The tremendous weight which such tests would necessarily carry in the minds of a jury requires us to he most careful regarding their admission into evidence and we should not do so before its accuracy and general scientific acceptance and standardization are clearly shown.” In People v. Welke, supra, the Court stated (p 169): “We believe reversible error was committed by allowing the testimony that clearly disclosed to the jury that not only was the lie-detector test made but the fact that the man who made

1968In the case of State v. Driver (1962), 38 NJ 255 ( 183 A2d 655, 658 ), the prosecutor’s statement to the jury informed them that the defendant had refused to take a lie-detector test.

1968In the case of State v. Driver (1962), 38 NJ 255 ( 183 A2d 655, 658 ), the prosecutor’s statement to the jury informed them that the defendant had refused to take a lie-detector test.