Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2003 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Valdezgreen2 sentences1989In Owens v. State (1978), 176 Ind.App. 1, 3-4 , 373 N.E.2d 913, 915 , we adopted prerequisites set out by the Supreme Court of Arizona, State of Arizona v. Valdez (1962), 91 Ariz. 274, 283 , 371 P.2d 894, 900 , in order for the results of a polygraph test to be admitted into evidence. 1989In Owens v. State (1978), 176 Ind.App. 1, 3-4 , 373 N.E.2d 913, 915 , we adopted prerequisites set out by the Supreme Court of Arizona, State of Arizona v. Valdez (1962), 91 Ariz. 274, 283 , 371 P.2d 894, 900 , in order for the results of a polygraph test to be admitted into evidence. | 1 | 2 |
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 |
Vacendak v. Stategreen1 sentence1978See 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 |
|---|---|---|
Owens v. State
green
2 sentences1989In Owens v. State (1978), 176 Ind.App. 1, 3-4 , 373 N.E.2d 913, 915 , we adopted prerequisites set out by the Supreme Court of Arizona, State of Arizona v. Valdez (1962), 91 Ariz. 274, 283 , 371 P.2d 894, 900 , in order for the results of a polygraph test to be admitted into evidence. 1989In Owens v. State (1978), 176 Ind.App. 1, 3-4 , 373 N.E.2d 913, 915 , we adopted prerequisites set out by the Supreme Court of Arizona, State of Arizona v. Valdez (1962), 91 Ariz. 274, 283 , 371 P.2d 894, 900 , in order for the results of a polygraph test to be admitted into evidence. | 2 | 1979–1989 |
Reid v. State
green
2 sentences1979The Supreme Court in Reid v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 166 , 285 N.E.2d 279 expressly approved a written waiver which permitted a polygraph examination into evidence. 1979The Supreme Court in Reid v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 166 , 285 N.E.2d 279 expressly approved a written waiver which permitted a polygraph examination into evidence. | 2 | 1975–1979 |
Bluck v. State
green
1 sentence2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Pavone v. State
green
1 sentence1981Though Filler concedes the rule announced in Pavone v. State, (1980) Ind., 402 N.E.2d 976 , that results of polygraph tests are inadmissible in criminal prosecutions absent waiver or stipulation of the parties, he argues that it would be admissible in a trial before the court with no jury being involved, as here. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Towns
neutral
2 sentences1980The Michigan Court of Appeals held with regard to a polygraph test that there “was no relevance, for sentencing purposes, to defendant’s answers to questions concerning his guilt.” People v. Towns, (1976) 69 Mich.App. 475, 478-479 , 245 N.W.2d 97, 99 . 1980The Michigan Court of Appeals held with regard to a polygraph test that there “was no relevance, for sentencing purposes, to defendant’s answers to questions concerning his guilt.” People v. Towns, (1976) 69 Mich.App. 475, 478-479 , 245 N.W.2d 97, 99 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
White v. State
green
2 sentences1979The Supreme Court in White v. State, supra, 381 N.E.2d at 484 , stated, “ ‘some form of waiver’ is all that is required.” In that case it permitted the introduction of a polygraph test since the defendant in open court and being questioned by her attorney and the court expressly waived and agreed to allow the results of a polygraph test into evidence. 1979The Supreme Court in White v. State, supra, 381 N.E.2d at 484 , stated, "`some form of waiver' is all that is required." In that case it permitted the introduction of a polygraph test since the defendant in open court and being questioned by her attorney and the court expressly waived and agreed to allow the results of a polygraph test into evidence. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Lies v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation
green
1 sentence1975Reid v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 192 , 285 N.E.2d 279 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Aguilar v. Texas
red
2 sentences1975There is no credibility gap in this case as was true in Aguilar v. State of Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 (an unidentified informant), Spinelli v. United States (1969) 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , and the recent Indiana Supreme Court case of Madden v. State of Indiana (1975), 263 Ind. 223 , 328 N.E.2d 727 . 1975There is no credibility gap in this case as was true in Aguilar v. State of Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 (an unidentified informant), Spinelli v. United States (1969) 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , and the recent Indiana Supreme Court case of Madden v. State of Indiana (1975), 263 Ind. 223 , 328 N.E.2d 727 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Spinelli v. United States
red
2 sentences1975There is no credibility gap in this case as was true in Aguilar v. State of Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 (an unidentified informant), Spinelli v. United States (1969) 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , and the recent Indiana Supreme Court case of Madden v. State of Indiana (1975), 263 Ind. 223 , 328 N.E.2d 727 . 1975There is no credibility gap in this case as was true in Aguilar v. State of Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 (an unidentified informant), Spinelli v. United States (1969) 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , and the recent Indiana Supreme Court case of Madden v. State of Indiana (1975), 263 Ind. 223 , 328 N.E.2d 727 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Madden v. State
green
2 sentences1975There is no credibility gap in this case as was true in Aguilar v. State of Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 (an unidentified informant), Spinelli v. United States (1969) 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , and the recent Indiana Supreme Court case of Madden v. State of Indiana (1975), 263 Ind. 223 , 328 N.E.2d 727 . 1975There is no credibility gap in this case as was true in Aguilar v. State of Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 (an unidentified informant), Spinelli v. United States (1969) 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , and the recent Indiana Supreme Court case of Madden v. State of Indiana (1975), 263 Ind. 223 , 328 N.E.2d 727 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Zupp v. State
green
2 sentences1974In Zupp v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 625 , 283 N.E.2d 540 , we held that the results of a lie detector test are inadmissible. 1974In Zupp v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 625 , 283 N.E.2d 540 , we held that the results of a lie detector test are inadmissible. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.