polygraph test in New York

1999As the circumstances surrounding administration of the polygraph test cannot fairly be viewed as “evidence of police stratagems or deception so fundamentally unfair as to deny defendant due process” (People v Sobchik, 228 AD2d 800, 802 ), suppression of defendant’s statements was not called for (cf., People v Leonard, 59 AD2d 1 ).

1996He was clearly misled regarding the use of the polygraph test (see, People v Leonard, 59 AD2d 1 ) in order to justify his continued prearraignment interrogation (cf., People v Wilson, 56 NY2d 692, 693 ).

1989Rather, the issuance of the warnings negated any possibility that the defendant felt compelled to submit to the polygraph test or speak to the detectives (see, People v Ross, supra; People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907, 911 ; People v Tarsia, 67 AD2d 210 , affd 50 NY2d 1 ).

1987Rather, the issuance of the warnings negated any possibility that the defendant felt compelled to submit to the polygraph test or speak to the detectives (see, People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907, 911 ; People v Tarsia, 67 AD2d 210 ; affd 50 NY2d 1 ).

1986The Court of Appeals in Leone (supra), the leading case on polygraph evidence, in excluding the evidence, emphasized the danger that evidence of a polygraph test, commonly known as a "lie detector”, will be given undue weight by a jury.

1984The prosecutor also committed prejudicial error by implying that the jury could infer defendant’s guilt from his refusal to take a polygraph test (see People v Leone, 25 NY2d 511; People v Smith, 61 AD2d 91, 98 ).

1994No credible view of the evidence supports a contention that defendant reasonably believed himself to be in custody (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 , cert denied 400 US 851 ; People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837 , affg 153 AD2d 494 ; People v White, 164 AD2d 413, 417 , affd 79 NY2d 900 ).

1989We find that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the suppression court’s finding (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 , mot to amend remittitur denied 26 NY2d 845 , cert denied 400 US 851 ; see also, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ), and we further conclude that defendant was not in custody prior to his confession (CPL 470.15 [1]; People v Dyla, 142 AD2d 423, 432-433 ; People v Bailey, 140 AD2d 356, 358 ; People v McNeeley, 77 AD2d 205, 208-209 ).

2025The court also finds the [*7]Second Department's decision in People v Ghee ( 153 AD2d 954 [2d Dept 1989] particularly instructive.

2025The court also finds the [*7]Second Department's decision in People v Ghee ( 153 AD2d 954 [2d Dept 1989] particularly instructive.

2025Martino appears particularly analogous, wherein the Second Department held that it was not necessary to reissue Miranda warnings to the defendant after he made an inculpatory statement upon exiting a room where he had been given a polygraph test ( Martino , 259 AD2d at 562 ).

2025Martino appears particularly analogous, wherein the Second Department held that it was not necessary to reissue Miranda warnings to the defendant after he made an inculpatory statement upon exiting a room where he had been given a polygraph test ( Martino , 259 AD2d at 562 ).

2002Although the prosecutor improperly elicited that testimony from the police officer, thereby “implying that the jury could infer defendant’s guilt from his refusal to take a polygraph test” and his request for counsel (People v Grice, 100 AD2d 419, 421 ), we conclude that defense counsel’s subsequent cross-examination of that witness “blunted any prejudice” to defendant (People v Fancher, 267 AD2d 770, 772 , lv denied 94 NY2d 919 ).

1998Thus, not only is this contention unpreserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted (see, CPL 470.15 [6]) as the reference was not so egregious as to deny defendant a fair trial (cf, People v Grice, 100 AD2d 419 [pervasive prosecutorial misconduct, which included reference to the defendant’s failure to take a polygraph test, deprived the defendant of a fair trial]) and was harmless error in any event (see, People v Tyce, 160 AD2d 1033 , Iv denied 76 NY2d 867 ).

1999Although polygraph evidence may be admissible under certain circumstances in administrative proceedings where compliance with the rules of evidence is not required (see, Matter of Sowa v Looney, 23 NY2d 329, 333 ; Matter of Motell v Napolitano, 186 AD2d 989 ; May v Shaw, 79 AD2d 970), the reliability of polygraph testing has not been demonstrated with sufficient certainty to render such test results admissible injudicial proceedings in this State (see, People v Shedrick, 66 NY2d 1015, 1018 ; Pereira v Pereira, 35 NY2d 301, 306 ).

1998Such testimony may be considered in a hearing of this type, if it is otherwise material and relevant, as long as there is — as there was in this instance — substantial evidence of the reliability of the machine and the qualifications of the operator (see, Matter of Motell v Napolitano, 186 AD2d 989, 990 ).

1999By eliciting that testimony, however, defense counsel did not open the door to the prosecutor’s improper questioning of defendant concerning his reasons for refusing to take the polygraph test (cf., People v Michaud, 248 AD2d 823, 824 , lv denied 91 NY2d 1010 ).

1999Because defense counsel did not object to that testimony, defendant’s contention has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Michaud, 248 AD2d 823, 824 , lv denied 91 NY2d 1010 ).

1999Although polygraph evidence may be admissible under certain circumstances in administrative proceedings where compliance with the rules of evidence is not required (see, Matter of Sowa v Looney, 23 NY2d 329, 333 ; Matter of Motell v Napolitano, 186 AD2d 989 ; May v Shaw, 79 AD2d 970), the reliability of polygraph testing has not been demonstrated with sufficient certainty to render such test results admissible injudicial proceedings in this State (see, People v Shedrick, 66 NY2d 1015, 1018 ; Pereira v Pereira, 35 NY2d 301, 306 ).

1998Polygraph test results, for example, that are otherwise inadmissible (e.g., Matter of Sowa v Looney, 23 NY2d 329 ) are not rendered admissible merely because they happen to be part of the paperwork filed with the court.

1997(People v Shedrick, 66 NY2d 1015 [1985]; People v Ricigliano, 138 AD2d 751 [2d Dept [1988].) The often-stated reason for their exclusion is that they are not considered competent or reliable.

1989(People v Shedrick, 66 NY2d 1015, 1018 [1985]; People v Ricigliano, 138 AD2d 751 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 71 NY2d 1032 [1988].) The effect of this question was not dissipated by the trial court’s immediate sustaining of an objection to the question.

1994No credible view of the evidence supports a contention that defendant reasonably believed himself to be in custody (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 , cert denied 400 US 851 ; People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837 , affg 153 AD2d 494 ; People v White, 164 AD2d 413, 417 , affd 79 NY2d 900 ).

1989We find that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the suppression court’s finding (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 , mot to amend remittitur denied 26 NY2d 845 , cert denied 400 US 851 ; see also, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ), and we further conclude that defendant was not in custody prior to his confession (CPL 470.15 [1]; People v Dyla, 142 AD2d 423, 432-433 ; People v Bailey, 140 AD2d 356, 358 ; People v McNeeley, 77 AD2d 205, 208-209 ).

1989Rather, the issuance of the warnings negated any possibility that the defendant felt compelled to submit to the polygraph test or speak to the detectives (see, People v Ross, supra; People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907, 911 ; People v Tarsia, 67 AD2d 210 , affd 50 NY2d 1 ).

1987Rather, the issuance of the warnings negated any possibility that the defendant felt compelled to submit to the polygraph test or speak to the detectives (see, People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907, 911 ; People v Tarsia, 67 AD2d 210 ; affd 50 NY2d 1 ).

1983(People v Frank, 101 Misc 2d 736 , conviction affd 83 AD2d 642 ; cf. People v Daniels, 102 Misc 2d 540, 553 .) Thus, as a practical matter, a polygraph test is at most a device to be considered by a District Attorney, in his discretion, in the course of deciding whether to take some action.

1981Although polygraph evidence has not been accepted to determine guilt or innocence before a petit jury (cf. People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 49 ), such evidence has been held worthy of consideration in guiding the exercise of the discretion of the court in Clayton hearings (People v Vernon, 89 Misc 2d 472, 476 ), and for other purposes (People v Daniels, 102 Misc 2d 540, 553-556 ).

1982New York has adopted a test identical to the Frye rule in considering the admissibility of evidence produced by various scientific procedures, viz., whether the reliability of the results of a procedure is generally acknowledged in the scientific community (see People v Middleton, 54 NY2d 42 , admitting bite mark evidence; People v Leone, 25 NY2d 511 , excluding results of a polygraph test; People v Forte, 279 NY 204 , holding pathometer exam readings not admissible; People v Tarsia, 67 AD2d 210 , affd 50 NY2d 1 , excluding results of a voice stress test).

1969An analysis of the polygraph test administered here and its results clearly indicate that the prosecution has failed to meet the standard set by this court “ to show a general scientific recognition that the [polygraph] possesses efficacy.” (People v. Forte, supra, at p. 206 .) The examiner here testified that the polygraph machine recorded the defendant’s emotional disturbance or stress during the questioning and he interpreted these lines on the chart as indicating that the defendant was either (1) “ practicing deception ”, or (2) lying in his response, or (3) withholding information or some

2020We conclude, however, that trial counsel's conduct did not constitute " egregious and prejudicial' error such that defendant did not receive a fair trial" ( Benevento , 91 NY2d at 713 ; see People v Turley , 130 AD3d 1574, 1575-1576 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 972 [2015], reconsideration denied 26 NY3d 1093 [2015]).

2016The proof of defendant’s guilt was accordingly compelling and, contrary to his contentions, this varied proof satisfied the corroboration requirements of CPL 60.22 (see People v Burgin, 40 NY2d 953, 954 [1976]) and CPL 60.50 (see People v Flemming, 101 AD3d 1483 , 1487 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 942 [2013]).