If I have heard it once, I've heard it a thousand times. A prosecutor tells an accused, "If you will take a polygraph and pass, all charges will be dropped." Under the right circumstances, this can provide an excellent method of resolving all issues for someone falsely accused, but done incorrectly, the results can be fatal.

Many times the accused, knowing they are innocent, agrees to the examination and fails, which often results in the prosecutor launching a full-scale investigation. Because the accused "failed," some "do-good" prosecutors will even go so far as to manufacture evidence when there is none in their desire to convict. It is not uncommon for these prosecutors to "pump-up" their witnesses and experts by telling them the accused must be guilty because they "failed" a polygraph.

The single most important question then becomes, how is it possible for someone who is innocent to fail a test when the issue is, "were they guilty of something they never did?" Very simple. These tests have "human" factors involved.

Do not misunderstand. I am not against polygraph examinations, when done correctly and by a professional and honorable examiner. As a matter of fact, I have personally conducted truth verification testing for the past 17 years and, often, allowing me to resolve issues in cases I never could have resolved had it not been for the tests.

One of the major problems with these tests is that sometimes "emotion" gets involved and the examiner sees, in their charts, what they want to see, not what is honestly there. As a perfect example, years ago, we investigated a murder case and identified the guilty party. In that case, I did not want to test them personally because I was involved in the investigation and did not want my personal thoughts or opinions to sway my evaluation of the results. The state police agreed to perform the examination. When the testing was complete, the examiner approached me and said he saw no indication that the man was being deceptive. Instead of simply shutting up and leaving, and before I could think, I reacted by telling the examiner that either he asked the wrong questions or he didn't know how to read his charts, because just as sure as I was standing there, he was guilty. Part of my belief was based on the fact that this man had told me, "if a person had done this, how much trouble would it be to get them out of it and how much better would it be if they went ahead and admitted it?"

As I was returning to my office with the man, we discussed the fact that he passed and I asked him if he had been given an opportunity to "see his charts," knowing full well that he had not. When he said he had not, I told him that since he had passed, I would go ahead and repeat the examination when we got back to the office and let him see what the charts looked like.

When we returned, I completed the testing and he reacted strongly to all relevant questions. Base on that, I had a psychologist test him, the results being that he had extremely strong homicidal and suicidal tendencies. All of this, including the examination by the state police, was done on a Friday.

The following Monday morning, I received a telephone call from the officer who conducted the examination for the state. He asked me if I could get the man back in for testing. I told him I could not and then asked why, since he told me he had "passed" the individual. His immediate response was, "Well, since you were so positive that he was guilty, I studied the charts again during the weekend and did see some irregularity." "I am giving him an inconclusive because I think he may have taken some type drug before he got here and I want to do a retest."

The fact is, he initially passed the man, but "since I was so positive," he changed his results. That change had absolutely nothing to do with the examination or charts. It simply was as issue that he did not want to be responsible later for passing someone accused of murder, when that person was proven guilty.

Now, the specific reason for the discussion above is that "emotion," as well as "no desire to be embarrassed" does sometimes factor into the results. What happens if a polygraph examiner tests someone accused of molesting a child, that person passes the examination and then "evidence" without question, supports their guilt? Isn't that a direct reflection on the examiner? Think it cannot happen? An examiner tested a young boy who alleged that he had been sexually molested. He passed the boy. In that case, psychologists, detectives and the prosecutor were absolutely convinced the boy was telling the truth. A short time thereafter, the young man admitted that allegation was a lie. When confronted, the polygraph examiner admitted the boy had problems with the testing, but he passed him because, "Why would a child lie about something like that?" In another case, a law enforcement examiner "failed" an accused. The actual charts he produced from the tests were then examined by an expert who found no deception whatsoever and the examiner then admitted that "he felt sorry for the child" and thought the accused "looked like a child molester."

If these examinations were conducted by "nuts-and-bolts," "no emotion" machines and there was no human element or involvement, I suspect that many examination results would be drastically different. The human factor is often the "problem." For example, if the examiner simply does not like the person they are testing, or if they have a pre-conceived idea as to their guilt, these factors can certainly affect the results.

One of the most often asked questions is, "Can I beat the polygraph?" Absolutely, but the fact is, you are not "beating" the "machine," you are "beating" the examiner. It is highly unlikely that will happen with an experienced examiner though, because they will quickly realize that you are attempting to manipulate the results and why would you have a desire to do that if you were innocent?

When submitting to a polygraph, there should be a thorough pretest interview in which all possible issues that may fail an innocent person are addressed. It is vital to discuss any problems or issues that may affect the results with the examiner during this interview. Remember, something that means one thing to one person could mean something entirely different to someone else. I tested a man that had been accused of rape. The evidence against him was overwhelming, yet when I asked him if he "raped" the woman, he said no and was not being deceptive. When we discussed the matter, I asked him what the word "rape" meant to him. He said "rape" was when you "beat up" a woman. That was "his" definition of rape and no, he did not "beat up" the woman. He took her sexually, so as to "his" definition, he was being truthful when he responded that he had not "raped" her.

During testing, there are normally three type of questions; control, relevant and irrelevant. Relevant questions are, "did you molest this child?" Irrelevant questions, "is today Friday," are used to develop a "norm" for chart patterns and a control question is an outside issue, not pertaining to the issue that the test deals with. For example, if you asked someone, "have you ever stolen anything in your life," certainly they have, but the examiner may ask them to respond that they have not. The idea is, if there is more "reaction" to the control question than there is to the relevant issues, that is certainly indicative that the responses to relevant issues are not deceptive. Not attempting to be amusing, but in my testing, as a control question, often I'll ask, "Do you visit a dentist regularly?" Most of us do not. The question is actually psychological. Without the person being tested realizing it, I have actually "offended" them to some degree. They begin thinking, "Why would he ask something like that?" "Does he see something funny in my mouth?" and before long, many of them actually have their hand covering the front of their mouth out of embarrassment. When I conduct the test, if the person is not guilty of the issues being tested for, there will normally be a very strong reaction to the "dentist" issue, because, as I said, it can be offensive. If, however, the person I am testing is guilty, there will be no reaction whatsoever to the control question. They could care less what you say to them. Their only concern, "is this machine going to catch me?" In those cases, obviously, the reaction is to the relevant issues.

As I said previously, a polygraph examination, under the right circumstances, can be a blessing and can result in all charges against an accused being dismissed, but before "jumping" to take one, I would strongly suggest you work with an expert in this field. For example, if we have a client who is offered a test by the prosecutor, we always have a pretest done. We assure that before any testing, we carefully educate our client as to the ins and outs of any polygraph. It is important for them to understand that a polygraph must deal with "one single" issue. The examiner cannot go off on a "toot," in an attempt to determine anything you have ever done wrong.

After carefully discussing the polygraph, we get an examiner that has the credentials and the fortitude to stand by their results if later test results, especially those administered by law enforcement, are different. Once the client is thoroughly educated and passes our test, then we allow them to submit to the "prosecutor's" examination. In that manner, if they pass, all charges are dismissed and in the event they fail, the results of the first test are used as rebuttal. Also consider another very important issue. If the client does fail our test, we are the only ones who know the results and under those circumstances, we would not recommend that they take the prosecutor's examination.

There are many honorable and professional polygraph examiners who test properly and without emotion, but never lose sight of the fact that there are those who "want you to be guilty." If confronted with a false allegation and given the opportunity to resolve all issues with a polygraph, by all means, accept the offer, but only under the right circumstances. Unfortunately, most attorneys will not allow their clients to take any testing. In many cases, as bad as I hate to admit it, we have had the client take the testing without their attorney's knowledge or consent, but in every case, the client has passed and the matter resolved. Please do not misunderstand. It never is my intention or desire to "go behind the back" of my client's attorney, but it is my desire to "win" and stop the allegations before they get out-of-hand whenever possible. We have spent years defending these cases and know what it takes to win. Some small-town lawyers, who have a general practice, have never been near a false allegation case. It is normal for them to refuse to allow their client to submit to any testing and for them to take the attitude, "Let's wait and see what we are up against before doing anything."