How Attorneys Use Polygraph

Ex parte Renfro, 999 S.W.2d 557 (Tex. App. 1999) (Court could properly condition community-supervised probation on periodic polygraph exams.)

Marcum v. State, 983 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. App. 14th Dist. 1998) (Polygraph examination administered as part of a court-ordered condition of probation is not an in-custody interrogation for purposes of triggering the need to give Miranda warning.)

Andrade v. City of San Antonio, 143 F.Supp.2d 699 (W.D. Tex. 2001) (Upholding pre-employment polygraph screening for firefighter positions.)

  Bradley v. State, 48 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. App. 2001) (Court did not err in refusing to allow defendant to cross-examine state’s key witness with evidence that witness changed his statement after failing polygraph but was not polygraphed to determine truthfulness regarding changed statement.)

  Graham v. State, 3 S.W.3d 272 (Tex. App. 1999) (Order to Air Force cadet to stay overnight unrestrained at command center in military institution pending next day’s polygraph test does not constitute apprehension or custody, as such restriction was a product of cadet’s military status. As such, post-polygraph confession is not a product of illegal arrest or detention. Further, prosecutor’s improper reference to defendant’s polygraph examination during opening statement did not require mistrial, as court gave limiting instruction. Additional reference to polygraph by prosecution was not made subject of objection and, as such, defendant waived right to raise as an issue on appeal.)

Guardiola v. State, 20 S.W.3d 216 (Tex. App. 2000) (Failed polygraph cannot, by itself, constitute probable cause for arrest.)

Hernandez v. State, 10 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. App. 2000) (Court declined to re- examine per se rule excluding polygraph evidence at trial.)

  Leonard v. State, 2021 WL 715981 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (Reversing lower appellate court, the Court held that polygraph evidence is admissible in a revocation hearing on defendant’s discharge from a sex offender treatment program involving community supervision if it qualified as the basis for an expert opinion under Texas Rules of Evidence 703 and 705(a). Such evidence is permission because revocation hearings are administrative proceedings, in which there is no jury and the judge is not determining the guilt of the original offense.)

Long v. State, 10 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000) (Although results of polygraph examination are inadmissible, failure of defendant to object to testimony of polygraph results prevents raising the issue on appeal. Had defendant timely raised an objection to the testimony of polygraph examination results, he would have been entitled to a mistrial.)

Gomes v. State, 9 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. App. 1999) (Police conduct following polygraph examination not sufficient to overcome voluntariness of defendant’s confession.)

Perkins v. State, 902 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. App. 1995) (Polygraph evidence inadmissible under Rule 702, as it does more than assist trier of fact but, rather, impermissibly decides an issue for the jury. Also, such rule does not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to obtain favorable witnesses.

Mitchell v. State, 420 S.W.3d 448 (Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston 14th Dist, 2014) Polygraphs offer some value at the diagnostic level, thus sex offenders required to submit to this condition of community supervision is reasonable.