- MRE 707 provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, the results of a polygraph examination, the opinion of a polygraph examiner, or any reference to an offer to take, failure to take, or taking of a polygraph examination, shall not be admitted into evidence; interpreting MRE 707 in line with ordinary rules of statutory construction and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the US district courts, the prohibition on any reference to the taking of a polygraph examination does not encompass evidence regarding the facts and circumstances of a polygraph examination procedure offered to explain the reason or motivation for a confession
- the prohibition on any reference to the taking of a polygraph examination must be understood in the context of the entire rule; MRE 707 lists three categories of polygraph examination information that may not be admitted into evidence: (1) the results; (2) the polygraph examiner’s opinion; and (3) any reference to an offer to take, failure to take, or taking of a polygraph examination; the prohibition on evidence of the results of a polygraph examination is the clear target of this rule, and the remaining prohibitions are calibrated to exclude evidence that would permit panel members to infer, or otherwise draw conclusions about, the results of a polygraph examination; all these prohibitions are tied to the core concern that polygraph examinations are scientifically unreliable; evidence of the facts and circumstances of a polygraph examination procedure offered to explain the reason or motivation for a confession are in no way tied to the reliability of the test itself; thus, military judges may exercise their discretion in deciding whether to admit evidence regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding a polygraph examination to explain the reason or motivation for a confession
CAAF Opinion Digest · III.C.21 · Evidence
Polygraph
7 digested opinions, 2000–2018 Terms
2018 (October Term)
2008 (September Term)
- MRE 707 prohibits the results of a polygraph examination and the opinion of a polygraph examiner from being admitted into evidence; polygraph evidence is prohibited because the reliability of polygraph evidence has not been sufficiently established and its use at trial impinges upon the integrity of the judicial system
2002
- although appellant’s case was tried while United States v. Scheffer, 44 MJ 442 (1996), was the state of the law with respect to admissibility of polygraph evidence in military trials, the court determined to apply the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998), retroactively and review the trial judge’s admission of a government polygraph as rebuttal to defense polygraph evidence for plain error
- appellant failed to show that erroneous admission of government polygraph evidence designed to rebut defense polygraph evidence materially prejudiced a substantial right because: (1) other than the fact that he was convicted, appellant points to nothing that would support a blanket assertion that the members reached their findings of guilt solely by rejecting appellant’s polygraph experts and accepting the government’s; (2) precedent does not support the general proposition that an accused be allowed to put his credibility in issue without challenge from the prosecution; and (3) appellant’s own erroneously admitted polygraphs likely negated any potential prejudicial error stemming from the government’s polygraph
2001
- the opinion of a polygrapher as to the truthfulness of an appellant is inadmissible evidence pursuant to Mil.R.Evid. 707(a)
2000
- military judge committed plain and obvious error by admitting a stipulation of fact into evidence during a providence inquiry where that stipulation noted that appellant agreed to take a polygraph test and that he failed that test. See Military Rule of Evidence 707
- where defense did not object to evidence that informant had taken a polygraph examination as part of a background investigation prior to being used as an informant, the matter will be reviewed for plain error
- although it was clear or obvious error to permit evidence of a polygraph examination taken by an informant, appellant did not carry his burden of establishing material prejudice where: (1) the polygraph was not presented as substantive proof; (2) there was no evidence of the subject matter of the polygraph; (3) there was no evidence of any responses given during the course of the polygraph; (4) there was no suggestion that the polygraph was used to measure the truthfulness of the informant’s reports to law enforcement regarding appellant’s misconduct; (5) the polygraph was not mentioned to bolster the informant’s testimony; and (6) it was the defense counsel who elicited the disclosure regarding the polygraph examination
- portion of appellant’s pretrial statement referencing his refusal to take a polygraph examination should have been redacted prior to providing the statement to the finder of fact
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IIIC21 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).