Example of a Case In Which Polygraph (Lie Detector) Evidence Was Allowed As Evidence
In People v. Binion, 358 Ill. App. 3d 612, 832 N.E.2d 875, 295 Ill. Dec. 425 (2005), the State's witness first testified on direct examination that his pretrial inculpatory statements were untrue and coerced by the police. on cross-examination, the witness disclosed, in response to a question from counsel for the defendant, that he had been taken for a polygraph examination.
The circuit court allowed the State on redirect to explore the circumstances surrounding the statement, rebutting the witness's claim of coercion.
This court found that, as in Jefferson, there was no anticipatory introduction of polygraph evidence because the State's witness's claim of coercion was already before the jury. Binion, 358 Ill. App. 3d at 624.
This court explained that in the context of the witness's trial testimony that his pretrial statement was coerced, the witness's subsequent reference to the polygraph examination could have left the jury with the impression that the police first coerced a statement from the witness and then forced him to undergo a polygraph examination.
This court noted that the possibility of misleading the jury can be a determinative factor in the decision to admit polygraph evidence. Binion, 358 Ill. App. 3d at 624.
This court explained that "a claim by a witness at trial that his pretrial statement was the product of police misconduct puts in play rebuttal evidence by the State that will bolster the voluntariness of the pretrial statement.
One way to do this is to offer evidence of a polygraph examination." Binion, 358 Ill. App. 3d at 624-25.
This court concluded that the evidence conformed to the recognized exception that allows polygraph evidence where the defense opened the door to its introduction and the State used the evidence to rebut the witness's claim of coercion. Binion, 358 Ill. App. 3d at 625.