On the possibility of using a polygraph to take testimony in court proceedings

In investigative and court practice there is a tendency to use a psychophysiological method based on the use of polygraph during questioning and interrogation. Today a polygraph is not only an investigative facility of fixing information, but also a conclusion of psychophysiological analysis. A polygraph is used by security service and during pre-trial investigation. Scientific methods and norms are elaborated to prove the scientific character of psychophysiological research. The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation uses a polygraph widely, it organized its own department of polygraph experts. It seems that administration of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation considers conclusions of polygraph experts as evidence which can help in detection of a crime and gathering evidence for a case. There is a tendency to use psychophysiological research in court investigation. The use of a polygraph during court testimony with further confirmation of the acquired information with psychophysiological analysis is a real evidence used by several courts of subjects of federation. The essence of this practice consists in the fact that a polygraph expert estimates evidence of the case, and personal evidence proved with a polygraph becomes "absolute". Consequently, confession of the defendant tends to be "absolute evidence". Several courts admit results of this type of research, in particular, a polygraph expert evidence, conclusions of psychophysiological analyses, as evidence for a case and refer to it as sentence foundations. Research made with a polygraph is not evidence of fact. According to Articles 74, 75 of the Criminal Proceeding Code of the Russian Federation, a conclusion of psychophysiological research with the use of a polygraph, as well as medico-legal psychiatric assessment are inadmissible evidence and can not be used as practical evidence for a case. Psychophysiological research has a probability character; expert conclusions have no scientific groundings. Questions of credibility of the defendant's testimony, facts of the case (such as different circumstances and facts exposed by the prosecution) are related to the competence of the court. According to psychophysiological research, documents do not correspond to requirements for an expert evidence. Only the judge can verify and evaluate personal evidence and come to a conclusion on the credibility of evidence or its invalidity. In a jury trial assessment of any party's evidence for a case is only in the competence of the jury trial, but not an expert. The adversarial system of the court, its directness, its oral nature and its publicity are the guarantees of credibility in court.

Keywords

Authors

References