Reply #321: a polygraph isn't admissable in court

[TorchTheWitch]

So why would Nifong spend the time and the state's money to do a polygraph that isn't admissable? Polygraphs are only admissable in a court of law (in jurisdictions where polygraphs are admissable) if both the prosecution and defense agree beforehand that the results will be admissable BEFORE the polygraph is done. According to the defense, Evans already took a polygraph, and by doing so made a polygraph inadmissable in this case as it was taken before both sides agreed to it and it was not taken by an independent expert.

EVERY prosecutor would turn down a request by a suspect to take a polygraph where the results would be inadmissable just as every defense attorney would turn down a request by the prosecution for a polygraph to be administered to their client where the results would be inadmissable. Cheshire KNOWS the prosecutor would turn him down, so it behooves him to air it in the media that his client is "willing" to take a polygraph administered by the prosecution.

Incidently, an expert was hired and paid for by the Evans team whose job it would be to explain, test, administer and interpret the polygraph favorably to Evans... that's what he's paid for. The reason why polygraphs are not admissable unless both sides agree that the results will be admissable in court BEFORE a polygraph is done is to ensure that an INDEPENDENT expert does the polygraph. Without an independent expert being the one to do the polygraph, both sides would never agree to it being done at all. Obviously, since the results of a polygraph are going to favor either one side or the other it's extremely rare that both sides in a case would agree to one being done seeing as they have to agree that whatever the results turn out to be it will be admissable in court.

Once again, this is a court of public opinion circus put on by the defense.