Polygraph admissibility in New York State
Even though polygraphs may not be admissible at trial, they add weight to the reliability of statements and can, and should, be considered by the Court. See People v. Miller, 2 Misc. 3d 1006(A), 784 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2004 WL 615136, *4 (N.Y. S. Ct., Chemung County, 2004) (unpublished) ("Although not admissible at trial, polygraph evidence does serve a purpose, and is relied upon, within the criminal justice system."); In re McKenzie "FF", 2 Misc. 3d 1012(A), 784 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2004 WL 877578 (N.Y. Fam. Ct., Fulton County, 2004) (unpublished) (receiving testimony of a certified polygraph examiner with the N.Y State Police, explaining that "polygraph exams are used widely throughout the country as an investigative tool to determine if a person is deceptive or truthful and also to determine whether criminal charges should be pressed"). The Court of Appeals has left open the possibility that a defendant can show in a Frye hearing that polygraph evidence has become sufficiently accepted in the scientific community to be admissible. See People v. Angelo, 88 N.Y.2d 217, 223-224, 666 N.E.2d 1333, 1335-1336 (1996). Courts have recognized the reliability of modern polygraph techniques. See United States v. Galbreth, 908 F. Supp. 877 (D.N.M. 1995) (allowing expert testimony regarding polygraph results and noting the reliability of modern polygraph techniques as compared to their precursors); United States v. Crumby, 895 F. Supp. 1354 (D. Ariz. 1995); In re Mackenzie FF, 2 Misc.3d 1012(A), 784 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 40304(U) at 9 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2004) (unpublished) (receiving testimony of a certified polygraph examiner with the New York State police, who testified that “polygraph exams are used widely throughout the country as an investigative tool to determine if a person is deceptive or truthful and also to determine whether criminal charges should be pressed”); People v. Miller, 2 Misc.3d 1006(A), 784 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2004 WL 615136 at *4, 9 (N.Y. Co. Ct. 2004) (unpublished) (granting motion to dismiss in the interest of justice primarily because “the defendant passed a polygraph examination wherein a very experienced polygrapher with a police background found that [the defendant] was being truthful in his statements that he did not steal money from the Elmira Police Department or falsify records in that department,” and noting that “law enforcement officials frequently avail themselves of lie detector testing. District Attorneys often direct such examinations as an aid in determining whether a case is in need of further investigation; whether dismissal proceedings are appropriate; and, when a trial is contemplated, whether a particular person should be called as a witness. In short, whether its results are admissible or not, the polygraph appears to be a sufficiently reliable and valid investigatory tool, and has been praised as such.”). Regards, Daniel D. Ribacoff, LPI, CPE, ACFE, ASTM President / CEO International Investigative Group, Ltd. 2901 Long Beach Road, Suite 5, Oceanside, NY 11572 (516) 764-3242 / (800) 766-2779 Fax (516) 764-3362 10 West 47th St., Suite 706 New York City, NY 10036 (212) 302-3200 / Fax (800) 863-3374 600 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 400 Harrison, NY 10528 (800) 766-2779 / Fax (800) 863-3374 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500, Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310) 592-0027 / Fax (310) 496-2179 CA PI Lic. # 25181 2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A, Boca Raton, FL 33431 (561) 892-2171 / Fax (800) 863-3374 The Lloyd's Building, 4th floor Mr. David Brackenbury, Marketing Director 12, Leadenhall Street ,London, England EC3V 1LP Office 011 44 207 816 2628 / Fax 011 44 207 816 5900 Tel: (Mobile) +44 774 050 9925 Investigations and Surveillance - US and Foreign www.iigpi.com Armed Protection * Security Consulting www.celebrityprotection.tv Polygraphs www.InDepthPolygraphs.com Drug Screening www.NYDrugTests.com Background Checks www.CheckB4Hiring.com =