Lie Detector Tests: Truth and Consequences

Learn how polygraph tests work, as well as what supporters and detractors have to say about them.

The theory underlying a lie detector test -- or a polygraph test, in more scientific terms -- is that lying is stressful, and that this stress can be measured and recorded on a polygraph machine. Lie detectors are called polygraphs because the test consists of simultaneously monitoring several of the suspect's physiological functions -- breathing, pulse and galvanic skin response -- and printing out the results on graph paper. This printout shows exactly when, during the questioning period, the biologic responses occurred. If the period of greatest biologic reaction lines up with the key questions on the graph paper -- the questions that would implicate the person as being involved with the crime -- stress is presumed. And along with this presumption of stress comes a second presumption -- that the stress indicates a lie.

Supporters of lie detector tests claim that the test is reliable because:

• very few people can control all three physiological functions at the same time, and
• polygraph examiners run preexamination tests on the suspect that enable the examiners to measure that individual's reaction to telling a lie.

On the other hand, critics of polygraph testing argue that:

• many subjects can indeed conceal stress even when they are aware that they are lying, and
• there is no reliable way to distinguish an individual's stress generated by the test and the stress generated by a particular lie.

The courts in most jurisdictions doubt the reliability of lie detector tests and refuse to admit the results into evidence. Some states do admit the results of polygraph tests at trial if the prosecution and defendant agree prior to the test that its results will be admissible.

http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-3129F771-5D55-44B2-A211F77574DBA634.html

Police Questioning After Arrest

What really happens if the police fail to read a suspect his rights or use coercion to extract information from a suspect.

Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to read a suspect his or her rights, they can't use anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial.

Popularly known as the Miranda warning (ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona) a defendant's rights consist of the familiar litany invoked by TV police immediately upon arresting a suspect:

• You have the right to remain silent.
• If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law.
• You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any questioning.
• If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire.
• If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. (This part of the warning is usually omitted from the screenplay.)

It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail or at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street or the middle of an open field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must give a Miranda warning if they want to question the suspect and use the suspect's answers as evidence at trial. If a person is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial if the person is later charged with a crime. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street to question him or her about a recent crime or the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning.

Consequences of Failure to Provide Miranda Warning

As mentioned, without a Miranda warning, nothing a person says in response to a custodial questioning can be used as evidence against the person at his or her trial. In addition, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule, if the police find evidence as a result of an interrogation that violates the Miranda rule, that evidence is also inadmissible at trial. For example, if a suspect tells the police where a weapon is hidden and it turns out that the suspect provided this information in response to improper questioning, the police will not be able to use the weapon as evidence unless the police can prove that they would have found the weapon without the suspect's statements.

When Police Come Down Too Hard

Information that is voluntarily disclosed to a police officer (after the person has been properly warned) is generally admissible at trial. The key word is "voluntary." Police officers are not allowed to use physical force or psychological coercion to get a suspect to talk to them. The days of the rubber hose, protracted grilling under bright lights and severe sleep deprivation are pretty much over. If police officers obtain information through any of these illegal means, the prosecutor cannot use the information at trial. In addition, under the rule known as "the fruit of the poisonous tree," any evidence that the police obtain as the result of a coerced statement is equally inadmissible.

http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-8B6A7AA5-700E-4A9B-9CF45606F6E4A635.html

Scientific Evidence: An Introduction

Learn about different types of scientific evidence and how such evidence may be used in court.

Scientific evidence is information that has been developed through a process known as the "scientific method" -- meaning that the information is considered valid because it has been tested and shown to accurately describe what it purports to describe. Typically, scientific evidence has been published in journals, tested by other scientists and generally accepted as valid within the relevant scientific community. Common examples of scientific evidence include DNA analyses, hair and fiber comparisons, fingerprints and voice identification evidence. Because scientific evidence is by definition beyond the realm of judges' and jurors' everyday experiences, the prosecution and the defense use qualified expert witnesses to introduce scientific evidence into the courtroom.

There are, of course, rules about when and how scientific evidence may be used in court. If a scientific theory is well established, testimony from a qualified expert witness based on that theory is usually admissible at trial, without additional expert testimony regarding the reliability of the evidence. For example, an expert is seldom necessary to convince a judge of the validity of fingerprint analysis or radar speed testing devices. However, as novel scientific theories emerge, experts must convince judges that information based on these new ideas is reliable and therefore appropriate for consideration by the judge or jury.

To establish the reliability of scientific evidence, the party seeking to introduce the evidence ordinarily schedules a "mini-trial" in which an expert testifies and explains the scientific methodology involved. For example, to use DNA evidence for the purpose of identifying a suspect (by comparing samples taken from the suspect with samples found at the crime scene), some judges still require the prosecutor to establish the reliability of that evidence in a mini-trial. If the judge is then convinced of its reliability, DNA evidence can be used in that case. Most courts, however, now accept DNA evidence as reliable and do not require a foundation (the function of the mini-trial) for its use.

http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-ADE88CBF-04EA-42A4-B218EA48F0A3B8EA.html

Police Questioning Prior to Arrest

If you haven't been arrested, but a police officer wants to question you about a crime, what should you do? Here are some tips.

Refusing to answer a police officer's questions is not a crime. Of course, people often voluntarily assist the police by supplying information that might help the police make an arrest. But the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the "right of silence." A police officer generally cannot arrest a person simply for failure to respond to questions. This means that unless a police officer has "probable cause" to make an arrest or a "reasonable suspicion" to conduct a "stop and frisk," a person approached by the police officer has the legal right to walk away. But the fact that there may be a legal right to walk away doesn't mean this is a wise move. This is because there is no real way to tell what information the officer is using as a basis for his or her actions. In fact, the officer may have information that gives him or her a valid legal basis to make an arrest or to conduct a "stop and frisk," even if the individual is, in truth, innocent of any wrongdoing. If that is the case, an officer may forcibly detain an innocent individual who starts to leave the scene of an interview.

Common sense and self-protection suggest that people who intend to walk away from a police officer make sure that the officer does not intend to arrest or detain them. A good question might be, "Officer, I'm in a hurry, and I'd prefer not to talk to you right now. You won't try to stop me from leaving, right?" If the officer replies that the person is not free to leave, the person should remain at the scene and leave the question of whether the detention is correct to the courts at a later time.

Even though, as a general rule, a person doesn't have to respond to a police officer's questions, this may not hold true if the officer suspects the person of loitering. Laws in effect in many states generally define loitering as "wandering about from place to place without apparent business, such that the person poses a threat to public safety." Under these laws, if a police officer sees a person loitering, the officer can demand identification and an explanation of the person's activities. If the person fails to comply, the officer can arrest the person for loitering. Therefore, the refusal to answer questions is a problem only if the officer has also observed the person loitering.

Another situation where answers to police questions are usually required is when drivers are stopped for suspected traffic violations. Traffic offenses such as speeding and unsafe lane changes are generally classified as "infractions," for which drivers are given citations in lieu of arrest. However, an officer has the right to demand personal identification -- usually a driver's license and the vehicle registration. A driver's refusal to supply the information elevates the situation to a more serious offense, for which the driver usually can be arrested. The simple refusal to answer questions is not a crime, but the refusal to supply identification, combined with the suspected commission of a traffic offense, is.

Miranda Warnings and Pre-Arrest Questioning

People are often surprised to learn that if a person hasn't yet been arrested, the police may question the person and use the answers in court without first providing the familiar "Miranda warning" that advises people of their constitutional right to not answer questions and to have an attorney present if they do decide to talk to police officers. In fact, the Miranda warning is required only if the person being questioned is in custody.

Deciding Whether to Answer Pre-Arrest Questions

Whether or not to respond to police questioning generally depends on the person's possible relationship to criminal activity, the person's views of his or her civic responsibilities, and the person's past experiences with the police. If, however, the questioning involves events that may result in criminal charges against the person being questioned, the almost universal advice of defense attorneys is to keep the old mouth tightly shut. Suspects all too frequently unwittingly reveal information that can later be used as evidence of their guilt. The right to not incriminate oneself guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is especially powerful in this situation. A person who has reason to believe that he or she is a potential suspect should politely decline to answer questions, at least until after consulting an attorney.

The Right of the Police to Conduct A Stop and Frisk

A police officer may stop a person in order to question them if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is engaged in criminal activity. And for self-protection, the officer can at the same time carry out a limited pat-down search for weapons (a "frisk").

In two cases decided in the 2000 term, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the "stop and frisk" rule. In one case, the Court ruled that running away from the police is enough of a reason for the police to stop and frisk the defendant. In another case the Court ruled that an anonymous tip that a suspect might be armed was insufficient justification for the police to conduct stop and frisk, absent other facts demonstrating the reliability of the tip. (Florida v. J.L, No. 98-1993 (March 28, 2000). )

http://www.ralphbehr.net/lawyer-attorney-32FC98D0-2A3D-4E09-94820C57A3685D95.html

What to do after an Injury

The most common type of injury claim involves automobile accidents. The insurance companies go to extraordinary lengths to deter injured victims from recovering for such injuries. They routinely refuse to fully compensate injured victims. They spend millions of dollars annually on television and radio to convince juries they should not compensate injured victims. They hire attorneys to protect their interests in Court. They even attempt to persuade victims that they do not need a lawyer to represent them. They contact injured victims shortly after they have been injured and prey on their need for money by offering them ridiculously low amounts of money to settle their case prematurely. These are some of the horrible and nefarious actions perpetuated daily on the American people by some of the largest insurance companies in the country.

The laws regarding personal injury claims, medical malpractice, products liability and car accidents are complicated. A single wrong move can result in an entire case being dismissed without a recovery. The laws governing personal injury are tough and insurance companies will go to great lengths to use the laws and protect themselves. Injured victims need aggressive, experienced legal representation; counsel that is specifically experienced in pursuing and recovering damages in personal injury claims.

If you were injured as a result of somebody else's negligence, there are several things you should try to do and several things you should not do in order to avoid insurance company tricks. We have created a FREE information book which you can download to your computer by clicking on the button on the right side of your screen. Our "Get the Facts" booklet provides thoughts to help you protect your legal rights since the insurance companies will do everything they can to protect theirs.

http://www.marylandaccident.com/lawyer-attorney-1030597.html

Critical Steps to Protect Your Case Right Now

Free Download: Automobile Accident Fact Book. Learn the Steps to Protect Your Automobile Accident Case.

Take the initiative to protect your case. Complete the short form & download our Free Accident Fact Book.

What you need to know:

1. Do NOT speak with their insurance company. No recorded statements. They may contact you & pretend to help but please remember, they are not on your side. Their interests are not consistent with your interests.

2. Please get and keep the identity, address & number of all persons involved in the accident including witnesses. Do not rely on the police to do that for you. Get tag numbers from all such persons.

3. Most importantly, seek immediate medical attention even if you think you may not be injured. You can sustain internal injuries and not be aware; they can be life threatening.

4. To learn other critical steps to take right now, download our Free Accident Fact Book.

http://www.marylandaccident.com/lawyer-attorney-1030594.html