lie detector test in South Carolina

1960In Commonwealth v. Saunders, 386 Pa. 149 , 125 A. (2d) 442, it was held that since lie detector evidence is not admissible, neither is evidence of professed willingness or refusal, to submit to such test.

1959Ed. (2d) 53; Commonwealth v. Saunders, 386 Pa. 149 , 125 A. (2d) 442. *423 After the witness Strom had completed his testimony, the trial Judge, on his own motion, with reference to the failure of the appellant Britt and Tilson to take the lie detector test, instructed the jury as follows: “Gentlemen, a little while ago, I permitted the last witness, I believe, on the stand, Chief Strom, to testify that on the advice of counsel, Mr. Rahal, the accused, Otis Britt and Lee von Tilson, declined to take the lie detector test.

2022After returning to 1 Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896). 2 The State called a doctor at trial who performed the sexual assault exam, but she testified that she did not see any signs of sexual abuse, not altogether surprising since only approximately 3% of victims show signs of abuse according to her testimony. deliberate, the jury informed the court that it was deadlocked, but the jury did not reveal the numerical split.

2007Our supreme court held defense counsel's mention of the polygraph test was "a reasonable way to cast doubt on [the accomplice's] testimony implicating [Ellenburg]." Id. at 69 , 625 S.E.2d at 226.

2007Our supreme court held defense counsel’s mention of the polygraph test was “a reasonable way to cast doubt on [the accomplice’s] testimony implicating [Ellenburg].” Id. at 69 , 625 S.E.2d at 226.

1976A hearing on the voluntariness of the statement and compliance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

1976A hearing on the voluntariness of the statement and compliance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

1976The Solicitor, without objection, asked appellant on cross-examination about the same matter and received a denial that the conversation had ever occurred. *515 Appellant contends that the foregoing references to a lie detector test were prejudicial and requires reversal under State v. Britt, 235 S. C. 395, 111 S. E. (2d) 669 .

1976The Solicitor, without objection, asked appellant on cross-examination about the same matter and received a denial that the conversation had ever occurred. *515 Appellant contends that the foregoing references to a lie detector test were prejudicial and requires reversal under State v. Britt, 235 S. C. 395, 111 S. E. (2d) 669 .

1960In Commonwealth v. McKinley, 181 Pa. Super. 610 , 123 A. (2d) 735, it was held that the results of a lie detector test being inadmissible, the offer of the accused to undergo such test was also properly excluded from the jury’s consideration.

1960In the case of People v. Carter, 48 Cal. (2d) 737, 312 P. (2d) 665 , it was held, in a murder prosecution, that the trial court erred in not excluding a statement of the suspect that he was willing to take the lie detector test.

1960In the case of People v. Carter, 48 Cal. (2d) 737, 312 P. (2d) 665 , it was held, in a murder prosecution, that the trial court erred in not excluding a statement of the suspect that he was willing to take the lie detector test.

1959State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N. W. (2d) 458 ; United States v. Bando, 2 Cir., 244 F. (2d) 833, certiorari denied, 355 U. S. 844 , 78 S. Ct. 67 , 2 L.

1959State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N. W. (2d) 458 ; United States v. Bando, 2 Cir., 244 F. (2d) 833, certiorari denied, 355 U. S. 844 , 78 S. Ct. 67 , 2 L.

1959State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N. W. (2d) 458 ; United States v. Bando, 2 Cir., 244 F. (2d) 833, certiorari denied, 355 U. S. 844 , 78 S. Ct. 67 , 2 L.

1959State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N. W. (2d) 458 ; United States v. Bando, 2 Cir., 244 F. (2d) 833, certiorari denied, 355 U. S. 844 , 78 S. Ct. 67 , 2 L.