16 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zupp v. Stategreen2 sentences1978The defendant likens the TMDT to a lie detector test and asserts that the results should be rejected, as being similarly unreliable, citing Vacendak v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 101 , 340 N.E.2d 352 , Zupp v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 625 , 283 N.E.2d 540 and Robinson v. State, (1974) Ind. App., 309 N.E.2d 833, 855 . 1978The defendant likens the TMDT to a lie detector test and asserts that the results should be rejected, as being similarly unreliable, citing Vacendak v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 101 , 340 N.E.2d 352 , Zupp v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 625 , 283 N.E.2d 540 and Robinson v. State, (1974) Ind. App., 309 N.E.2d 833, 855 . | 1 | 4 |
Vacendak v. Stategreen2 sentences1978The defendant likens the TMDT to a lie detector test and asserts that the results should be rejected, as being similarly unreliable, citing Vacendak v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 101 , 340 N.E.2d 352 , Zupp v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 625 , 283 N.E.2d 540 and Robinson v. State, (1974) Ind. App., 309 N.E.2d 833, 855 . 1978The defendant likens the TMDT to a lie detector test and asserts that the results should be rejected, as being similarly unreliable, citing Vacendak v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 101 , 340 N.E.2d 352 , Zupp v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 625 , 283 N.E.2d 540 and Robinson v. State, (1974) Ind. App., 309 N.E.2d 833, 855 . | 1 | 3 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2019See id. at 448-57 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 (describing pressures that create coercion, including use of deceptive stratagems). 2019See id. at 448-57 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 (describing pressures that create coercion, including use of deceptive stratagems). | 1 | 1 |
Glenn v. Stategreen1 sentence2005"In general, a reference to a polygraph examination without an agreement by both parties is inadmissible and grounds for error." Glenn v. State, 796 N.E.2d 322, 325 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Sisson v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Cf. Sisson v. State, 181 Ga.App. 784 , 353 S.E.2d 836, 838 (1987) (“ ‘The results’ of a lie detector test can be interpreted to be (1) the charts resulting from a graphing of the responses of the person tested, and/or (2) the opinion of the expert based on those charts.”). 1999Cf. Sisson v. State, 181 Ga.App. 784 , 353 S.E.2d 836, 838 (1987) (“ ‘The results’ of a lie detector test can be interpreted to be (1) the charts resulting from a graphing of the responses of the person tested, and/or (2) the opinion of the expert based on those charts.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Valdezgreen2 sentences1978See Moore v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 270 , 369 N.E.2d 628 , and Vacendak, supra. In People v. Potts (1966), 74 Ill.App.2d 301 , 220 N.E.2d 251, 252-253 , the Appellate Court of Illinois quoted from State of Arizona v. Valdez (1962), 91 Ariz. 274 , 371 P.2d 894, 900 , wherein the Supreme Court of Arizona set forth certain prerequisites which must be met before the results of a polygraph test can be admitted into evidence, id est: “* * * [2] ‘(1) That the county attorney, defendant and his counsel all sign a written stipulation providing for defendant’s submission to the test and for the subseque 1978See Moore v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 270 , 369 N.E.2d 628 , and Vacendak, supra. In People v. Potts (1966), 74 Ill.App.2d 301 , 220 N.E.2d 251, 252-253 , the Appellate Court of Illinois quoted from State of Arizona v. Valdez (1962), 91 Ariz. 274 , 371 P.2d 894, 900 , wherein the Supreme Court of Arizona set forth certain prerequisites which must be met before the results of a polygraph test can be admitted into evidence, id est: “* * * [2] ‘(1) That the county attorney, defendant and his counsel all sign a written stipulation providing for defendant’s submission to the test and for the subseque | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pottsgreen2 sentences1978See Moore v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 270 , 369 N.E.2d 628 , and Vacendak, supra. In People v. Potts (1966), 74 Ill.App.2d 301 , 220 N.E.2d 251, 252-253 , the Appellate Court of Illinois quoted from State of Arizona v. Valdez (1962), 91 Ariz. 274 , 371 P.2d 894, 900 , wherein the Supreme Court of Arizona set forth certain prerequisites which must be met before the results of a polygraph test can be admitted into evidence, id est: “* * * [2] ‘(1) That the county attorney, defendant and his counsel all sign a written stipulation providing for defendant’s submission to the test and for the subseque 1978See Moore v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 270 , 369 N.E.2d 628 , and Vacendak, supra. In People v. Potts (1966), 74 Ill.App.2d 301 , 220 N.E.2d 251, 252-253 , the Appellate Court of Illinois quoted from State of Arizona v. Valdez (1962), 91 Ariz. 274 , 371 P.2d 894, 900 , wherein the Supreme Court of Arizona set forth certain prerequisites which must be met before the results of a polygraph test can be admitted into evidence, id est: “* * * [2] ‘(1) That the county attorney, defendant and his counsel all sign a written stipulation providing for defendant’s submission to the test and for the subseque | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences1978See Moore v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 270 , 369 N.E.2d 628 , and Vacendak, supra. In People v. Potts (1966), 74 Ill.App.2d 301 , 220 N.E.2d 251, 252-253 , the Appellate Court of Illinois quoted from State of Arizona v. Valdez (1962), 91 Ariz. 274 , 371 P.2d 894, 900 , wherein the Supreme Court of Arizona set forth certain prerequisites which must be met before the results of a polygraph test can be admitted into evidence, id est: “* * * [2] ‘(1) That the county attorney, defendant and his counsel all sign a written stipulation providing for defendant’s submission to the test and for the subseque 1978See Moore v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 270 , 369 N.E.2d 628 , and Vacendak, supra. In People v. Potts (1966), 74 Ill.App.2d 301 , 220 N.E.2d 251, 252-253 , the Appellate Court of Illinois quoted from State of Arizona v. Valdez (1962), 91 Ariz. 274 , 371 P.2d 894, 900 , wherein the Supreme Court of Arizona set forth certain prerequisites which must be met before the results of a polygraph test can be admitted into evidence, id est: “* * * [2] ‘(1) That the county attorney, defendant and his counsel all sign a written stipulation providing for defendant’s submission to the test and for the subseque | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Litz
green
2 sentences2023The Indiana Supreme Court in In re: Litz[,] 721 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. 1999) addressed behavior such as [Slosar’s] and held that Litz’s publication of a letter in several local newspapers which state[d] his client committed no crime, criticized the prosecutor’s decision to retry the case, and mentioned his client had passed a lie detector test constituted a violation of Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 3.6(a).[6] 11. 2023The Indiana Supreme Court in In re: Litz[,] 721 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. 1999) addressed behavior such as [Slosar’s] and held that Litz’s publication of a letter in several local newspapers which state[d] his client committed no crime, criticized the prosecutor’s decision to retry the case, and mentioned his client had passed a lie detector test constituted a violation of Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 3.6(a).[7] 7 Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6(a) provides as follows: A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudi | 3 | 2023–2023 |
State Ex Rel. Penrod v. French
neutral
2 sentences2015Id. at 148-49 , 51 N.E.2d at 859 . 2015Id. at 148-49 , 51 N.E.2d at 859 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Everett Lyle Thomas v. Proper Instruction on Burden of Proof
green
2 sentences1989As so aptly put by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Thomas v. United States (9th Cir.1966), 363 F.2d. 159 , these references to the lie detector test constituted the “traditional ringing of a bell that could not be unrung.” Id. at 165 . 1989As so aptly put by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Thomas v. United States (9th Cir.1966), 363 F.2d. 159 , these references to the lie detector test constituted the “traditional ringing of a bell that could not be unrung.” Id. at 165 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Montes v. State
green
1 sentence1979Here we have such direct verbal inquiry, accompanied by two circumstances which indicate a degree of compulsion, namely, the unexplained use of the lie detector test and its results by the interrogator and the delay in presentment.” 332 N.E.2d at 793-794 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Niehaus v. State
green
2 sentences1978However, as we said of teeth marks, in Niehaus v. State, (1977) 265 Ind. 655 , 359 N.E.2d 513 , we see a marked distinction. 1978However, as we said of teeth marks, in Niehaus v. State, (1977) 265 Ind. 655 , 359 N.E.2d 513 , we see a marked distinction. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Robinson v. State
green
2 sentences1978The defendant likens the TMDT to a lie detector test and asserts that the results should be rejected, as being similarly unreliable, citing Vacendak v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 101 , 340 N.E.2d 352 , Zupp v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 625 , 283 N.E.2d 540 and Robinson v. State, (1974) Ind. App., 309 N.E.2d 833, 855 . 1978The defendant likens the TMDT to a lie detector test and asserts that the results should be rejected, as being similarly unreliable, citing Vacendak v. State, (1976) Ind., 340 N.E.2d 352 , Zupp v. State, (1972) Ind., 283 N.E.2d 540 and Robinson v. State, (1974) Ind. App., 309 N.E.2d 833, 855 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Reid v. State
green
2 sentences1977It is the defendant’s position that had the results been unfavorable to him, the State would have been permitted to introduce evidence concerning it and that it is manifestly unfair to deny the defendant the reciprocal right, citing Reid v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 166 , 285 N.E.2d 279 . 1977It is the defendant’s position that had the results been unfavorable to him, the State would have been permitted to introduce evidence concerning it and that it is manifestly unfair to deny the defendant the reciprocal right, citing Reid v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 166 , 285 N.E.2d 279 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Austin v. State
green
2 sentences1975In Robinson v. State (1974), Ind. App., 809 N.E.2d 833 , this court found no error in the decision of the trial court granting the State’s motion in limine seeking admonishment of witnesses and counsel “. . . to refrain from referring to or commenting upon, directly or indirectly, . . .” the fact that defendant had been administered a lie detector test. 1 More recently, in Austin v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 529 , 319 N.E.2d 130 , it was recognized that the disclosure of facts which might reveal to the jury that the defendant had undergone a polygraph examination is error. 1975In Robinson v. State (1974), Ind. App., 809 N.E.2d 833 , this court found no error in the decision of the trial court granting the State’s motion in limine seeking admonishment of witnesses and counsel “. . . to refrain from referring to or commenting upon, directly or indirectly, . . .” the fact that defendant had been administered a lie detector test. 1 More recently, in Austin v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 529 , 319 N.E.2d 130 , it was recognized that the disclosure of facts which might reveal to the jury that the defendant had undergone a polygraph examination is error. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.