polygraph test in Wyoming

1981This court, in Cullin v. State, Wyo. 1977, 565 P.2d 445 , recognized that under proper circumstances the results of polygraph exams may be admissible evidence, when it stated: “Apparently, in the federal judicial establishment until rather recently, the results of lie detector tests have been inadmissible. [Citations] In United States v. Oliver, 8 Cir. 1975, 525 F.2d 731 , cert. den. 424 U.S. 973 , 96 S.Ct. 1477 , 47 L.Ed.2d 743 , the defendant urged that he be subjected to a polygraph test and agreed that even if unfavorable, could be offered in evidence by the Government.

1981This court, in Cullin v. State, Wyo. 1977, 565 P.2d 445 , recognized that under proper circumstances the results of polygraph exams may be admissible evidence, when it stated: "Apparently, in the federal judicial establishment until rather recently, the results of lie detector tests have been inadmissible. [Citations] In United States v. Oliver, 8 Cir.1975, 525 F.2d 731 , cert. den. 424 U.S. 973 , 96 S.Ct. 1477 , 47 L.Ed.2d 743 , the defendant urged that he be subjected to a polygraph test and agreed that even if unfavorable, could be offered in evidence by the Government.

1981This court, in Cullin v. State, Wyo. 1977, 565 P.2d 445 , recognized that under proper circumstances the results of polygraph exams may be admissible evidence, when it stated: “Apparently, in the federal judicial establishment until rather recently, the results of lie detector tests have been inadmissible. [Citations] In United States v. Oliver, 8 Cir. 1975, 525 F.2d 731 , cert. den. 424 U.S. 973 , 96 S.Ct. 1477 , 47 L.Ed.2d 743 , the defendant urged that he be subjected to a polygraph test and agreed that even if unfavorable, could be offered in evidence by the Government.

1981This court, in Cullin v. State, Wyo. 1977, 565 P.2d 445 , recognized that under proper circumstances the results of polygraph exams may be admissible evidence, when it stated: "Apparently, in the federal judicial establishment until rather recently, the results of lie detector tests have been inadmissible. [Citations] In United States v. Oliver, 8 Cir.1975, 525 F.2d 731 , cert. den. 424 U.S. 973 , 96 S.Ct. 1477 , 47 L.Ed.2d 743 , the defendant urged that he be subjected to a polygraph test and agreed that even if unfavorable, could be offered in evidence by the Government.

1981This court, in Cullin v. State, Wyo. 1977, 565 P.2d 445 , recognized that under proper circumstances the results of polygraph exams may be admissible evidence, when it stated: “Apparently, in the federal judicial establishment until rather recently, the results of lie detector tests have been inadmissible. [Citations] In United States v. Oliver, 8 Cir. 1975, 525 F.2d 731 , cert. den. 424 U.S. 973 , 96 S.Ct. 1477 , 47 L.Ed.2d 743 , the defendant urged that he be subjected to a polygraph test and agreed that even if unfavorable, could be offered in evidence by the Government.

1981This court, in Cullin v. State, Wyo. 1977, 565 P.2d 445 , recognized that under proper circumstances the results of polygraph exams may be admissible evidence, when it stated: "Apparently, in the federal judicial establishment until rather recently, the results of lie detector tests have been inadmissible. [Citations] In United States v. Oliver, 8 Cir.1975, 525 F.2d 731 , cert. den. 424 U.S. 973 , 96 S.Ct. 1477 , 47 L.Ed.2d 743 , the defendant urged that he be subjected to a polygraph test and agreed that even if unfavorable, could be offered in evidence by the Government.

1981This court, in Cullin v. State, Wyo. 1977, 565 P.2d 445 , recognized that under proper circumstances the results of polygraph exams may be admissible evidence, when it stated: “Apparently, in the federal judicial establishment until rather recently, the results of lie detector tests have been inadmissible. [Citations] In United States v. Oliver, 8 Cir. 1975, 525 F.2d 731 , cert. den. 424 U.S. 973 , 96 S.Ct. 1477 , 47 L.Ed.2d 743 , the defendant urged that he be subjected to a polygraph test and agreed that even if unfavorable, could be offered in evidence by the Government.

1981This court, in Cullin v. State, Wyo. 1977, 565 P.2d 445 , recognized that under proper circumstances the results of polygraph exams may be admissible evidence, when it stated: "Apparently, in the federal judicial establishment until rather recently, the results of lie detector tests have been inadmissible. [Citations] In United States v. Oliver, 8 Cir.1975, 525 F.2d 731 , cert. den. 424 U.S. 973 , 96 S.Ct. 1477 , 47 L.Ed.2d 743 , the defendant urged that he be subjected to a polygraph test and agreed that even if unfavorable, could be offered in evidence by the Government.

1986In State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255 , 183 A.2d 655 (1962), cited in the majority opinion to hold that “reference by the prosecutor to a refusal of the accused to take a lie detector test required reversal,” there was much more than a mere “reference by the prosecutor.” In his opening statement, the prosecutor made a number of references to the refusal to take the test.

1986In State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255 , 183 A.2d 655 (1962), cited in the majority opinion to hold that “reference by the prosecutor to a refusal of the accused to take a lie detector test required reversal,” there was much more than a mere “reference by the prosecutor.” In his opening statement, the prosecutor made a number of references to the refusal to take the test.

1986The precedent is not that clear-cut, as reflected in the A.L.R.2d annotation, supra. In State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962), one of the cases referred to in the majority opinion, the court found that admission of a refusal to take the test was reversible error, distinguishing the facts of the case from those in State v. Smith, 187 Kan. 42 , 353 P.2d 510 (1960), in which the jury was admonished, and reversible error was not found.

1986The precedent is not that clear-cut, as reflected in the A.L.R.2d annotation, supra. In State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962), one of the cases referred to in the majority opinion, the court found that admission of a refusal to take the test was reversible error, distinguishing the facts of the case from those in State v. Smith, 187 Kan. 42 , 353 P.2d 510 (1960), in which the jury was admonished, and reversible error was not found.

1986The precedent is not that clear-cut, as reflected in the A.L.R.2d annotation, supra. In State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962), one of the cases referred to in the majority opinion, the court found that admission of a refusal to take the test was reversible error, distinguishing the facts of the case from those in State v. Smith, 187 Kan. 42 , 353 P.2d 510 (1960), in which the jury was admonished, and reversible error was not found.

1986The precedent is not that clear-cut, as reflected in the A.L.R.2d annotation, supra. In State v. Emory, 190 Kan. 406 , 375 P.2d 585 (1962), one of the cases referred to in the majority opinion, the court found that admission of a refusal to take the test was reversible error, distinguishing the facts of the case from those in State v. Smith, 187 Kan. 42 , 353 P.2d 510 (1960), in which the jury was admonished, and reversible error was not found.

1986In a later case, State v. Roach, 223 Kan. 732 , 576 P.2d 1082 (1978), the Kansas court held that not only the admission of evidence that defendant submitted to a polygraph test was not reversible error, but the results thereof admitted into evidence were not reversible error in view of a stipulation of the parties to admit the same.

1986In a later case, State v. Roach, 223 Kan. 732 , 576 P.2d 1082 (1978), the Kansas court held that not only the admission of evidence that defendant submitted to a polygraph test was not reversible error, but the results thereof admitted into evidence were not reversible error in view of a stipulation of the parties to admit the same.