Originally Posted by rickair7777
Not commenting on the truth in the matter. Just saying polygraphs are weak, and an exam conducted by one's own counsel is obviously irrelevant... it would only be conducted under very specific conditions, ie no risk.
It is INHERENTLY no risk. It has a forty percent false negative rate, so even if you believe your client is guilty you do it anyway, hoping for a negative. And if he does blow it, you simply don't tell anyone it was ever done. It's protected by attorney-client privilege. It's a heads I win, tails it never happened scenario.
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I'd be impressed if he volunteered for non-holds-barred polygraph by the law enforcement agency which has jurisdiction over the alleged events.
The predictive value positive or negative still remains dog poo. It might impress the very gullible though. But the lawyers from both sides will do what they can to keep the very gullible off the jury - unless they are a demographic favoring the side they want. In uber-liberal Seattle, they will be hard pressed to keep radical feminists off the jury who will assume the worst.
And seriously, best case scenario that a sixty-four year old married supervisor plied someone a quarter of a century younger than him with booze and she wound up in bed with him is NOT going to sit well with the jury. Especially after AAG just did a total revamp of their sexual harassment policies in response to this.
Any time you are denying criminal activity by pleading stupidity and gross buffoonery, you are on shaky ground, even in a criminal court. In a civil court it's a self inflicted wound.