The modern polygraph test enjoys a  seventy percent to ninety percent accuracy rate.{footnote}United States v. Dominguez, 902 F. Supp. 737, 739 (S.D. Tex. 1995). {/footnote}
Admissibility in Federal Courts

The Frye Standard.  The famous Frye test, announced by the Supreme Court in 1923, which requires that the principles underlying scientific evidence be "sufficiently established to have general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs," was developed in the context of a "systolic blood pressure deception test," the predecessor to the polygraph.{footnote}Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (lie detector evidence inadmimissible).  [REVERSED BY D.C. CIR. RE POLYGRAPH?]{/footnote}   In subsequent years, the Frye approach was abandoned by many courts in the context of polygraph evidence.{footnote}See United States v. Lupo, 65 2F.2d 723, 728 (7th Cir. 1981). {/footnote} In 1993, the Supreme Court overruled the Frye decision in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., holding that the more liberal standard of FRE 702 superseded Frye.{footnote} [3277]509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993){/footnote}  See SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Federal Decisions after Daubert.  Since Daubert, federal courts have generally held that  polygraph tests can no longer be considered per se inadmissible under the "flexible" standard set forth in Rule 702,{footnote}United States v. Posado, 57 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Pulido, 69 F.3d 192, 205 (7th Cir. 1995) (but no abuse of discretion in trial court’s exclusion of polygraph evidence).{/footnote} although courts have by and large continued to exclude the tests.{footnote}United States v. Kwong, 69 F.3d 663, 668 (2d Cir. 1995) (affirming exclusion under FRE 403 and declining to hold polygraph evidence admissible under FRE 702); United States v. Walker, No. 94‑5661, 1995 WL 551361, at [FNa]2 (4th Cir.
Sept. 18, 1995); Conti v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 39 F.3d 658, 662‑63 (6th Cir.  1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1793, 131 L.Ed.2d 722; Granite State Ins. Co. v. Smart Modular Technologies, Inc., 76 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 1996)(citing questionable reliability and unfair prejudice); Palmer v. City of Monticello, 31 F.3d 1499 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Lech, 895 F. Supp. 582, 585 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing concerns of prejudice under FRE 403).

 {/footnote} 

Some courts have held that polygraph evidence is admissible in grand jury proceedings, where the federal rules do not apply.{footnote}United States v. Callahan, 442 F. Supp. 1213 (D.C. Minn. 1978), rev’d on other grounds, 596 F.2d 759 (8th Cir. 1979).  See also United States v. Dorfman, 532 F. Supp. 1118, 1135 (N.D. Ill. 1981)
 CHECK United States v. Calandra, 414 US 338, 345-46, 94 S.Ct 613. 618-19, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974).{/footnote}

State Courts.  Held inadmissible.{footnote}Arizona v. Tinajero, 1997 Ariz. App. LEXIS 3 (January 9, 1997); People v. Pecoraro, 677 N.E.2d 875 (Ill. 1997) (inadmissible for criminal defense at both trial and capital sentencing hearing).
CHECK State v. Ikirt, 770 P.2d 1159, 1161 (___1989); [#2]{/footnote}

By Prior Agreement

Some courts will admit polygraph results if the parties stipulated in advance to their admission,{footnote}United States v. Santiago‑ Gonzales, 66 F.3d 3, 6 n.1 (1st Cir. 1995)
(parties agreed to use polygraph to verify defendant’s truthfulness under plea agreement).{/footnote} and even then the court has the discretion to exclude the results. 

Criminal Defendants

Courts may not allow a criminal defendant’s polygraph results into evidence without his consent, and of course no criminal accused can be compelled to take a polygraph test.{footnote}State v. Nemoir, 214 N.W.2d 297 (Wis. 1974).{/footnote}  See also SELF-INCRIMINATION, PRIVILEGE AGAINST.

Resulting Confessions.  Where an accused confesses after being told he has failed a polygraph examination, the examiner may testify as to the defendant’s response so long as the jury is instructed that the asserted result of the examination may only be considered with respect to the voluntariness of the confession, not as substantive evidence of guilt.{footnote}United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1989).{/footnote}

Admissibility of Responses

The inadmissiblity of polygraph examination results does not render inadmissible the statements made in response to questions during the examination, particularly where there is no mention of there being a polygraph involved.{footnote}Rothgeb v. United States, 789 F.2d 647 (8th Cir. 1986).{/footnote}

Admissibility of Fact that Polygraph Test Was Taken

In some cases, it is relevant that a party took a polygraph test, regardless of the results.  In such cases, the fact that a test was taken may be admitted unless the trial court determines that unfair prejudice would result.{footnote}Palmer v. City of Monticello, 31 F.3d 1499 (10th Cir. 1994)(trial court properly excluded evidence that plaintiff took polygraph where jury might infer from this that plaintiff passed). {/footnote}
Bibliography: Authorities collected in United States v. Dorfman, 532 F.Supp. 1118, 1134-36 (N.D.Ill. 1981)

Offer to Submit to Polygraph

A witness’ willingness or unwillingness to submit to a polygraph examination is generally held inadmissible.{footnote}Wolfel v. Holbrook, 823 F.2d 970 (6th Cir. 1987);United States v. Cardarella, 570 F.2d 264 (8th Cir. 1978); United States v. Hilton, 772 F.2d 783 (11th Cir. 1985).{/footnote}  Thus, it has been held that a witness’ agreement to take a polygraph test, made as part of a plea agreement, is inadmissible.{footnote}United States v. Brown, 720 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1983)
{/footnote}  A comment as to a criminal defendant’s unwillingness or refusal to undergo an examination may result in reversible error if his credibility is a central issue.{footnote}United States v. St. Clair, 855 F.2d 518 (8th Cir. 1988).{/footnote}

Attacking Polygraph Results

A party can attack the reliability of polygraph results by challenging the qualifications of the person administrating the test,{footnote}United States v. Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989)(evidence may be excluded).{/footnote} showing that the test was administered improperly,{footnote}United States v. Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989)(evidence may be excluded).{/footnote} as well as by cross-examining the test administrator as to the probability of erroneous results.

Jury Instruction

Polygraph evidence is not properly used as direct evidence of guilt, but only as evidence that when questioned at the examinination, the subject was not telling the truth.  The jury must be instructed accordingly.{footnote}State v. Valdez, 371 P.2d 894 (Ariz. 1962); State v. McDavitt, 297 A.2d 849 (N.J. 1972).

Contra People v. Potts, 220 N.E.2d 251 (Ill. 1966).{/footnote}

Related Articles

LIE DETECTION; SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Bibliography.
N.J. Marini, Annotation, Physiological or Psychological Truth and Deception Tests, 23 A.L.R. 2d 1306 (1952).