Does a court abuse its discretion in denying a defendant's application for funds for a polygraph expert to administer a test on defendant?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Clark, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 407, 372 P.3d 811, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016):
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for funds for the polygraph expert to administer a polygraph test on defendant. As we have stated, there is no point in spending money to obtain inadmissible evidence. (People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 877, 277 Cal.Rptr. 122, 802 P.2d 906.) The court correctly observed that defendant failed to establish a likelihood that a polygraph test by defendant would be admissible. Indeed, Evidence Code section 351.1 generally bans the admission of polygraph test results in criminal proceedings
[372 P.3d 893]
in the absence of a stipulation by the parties.81 (
[203 Cal.Rptr.3d 505]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
