meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Opening Arguments

Polygraphs and the Limits of Scientific Evidence in Court

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

Opinion, News, Liberal, Politics, Law, Harvard, Atheist, Legal, Supremecourt

4.33.7K Ratings

🗓️ 20 October 2025

⏱️ 48 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

OA1200 - We've got another great law and science episode for ya! Are polygraphs admissible? Do they work? Matt and Jenessa talk about the history, law, and science of polygraphs, and how criminal courts treat scientific testimony in general.

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

It's interesting to me that the Y detector was immediately recognized by courts with no other scientific evidence.

0:08.3

This doesn't seem right. This doesn't work.

0:17.7

It has all the bells and whistles of feeling sciencey.

0:21.6

It really does measure a real scientific thing, a real physiological response.

0:27.6

It happens when you are stressed, not only when you're stressed because you're lying.

0:40.8

Welcome to Opin Arguments.

0:46.0

We're going to be talking about lies and liars and how to detect them, but also about scientific standards in court.

0:48.6

Janessa Seymour, what's up?

0:49.9

Nothing much.

0:50.8

I have not been an expert witness, but I have listened to quite a few. So I'm

0:57.2

interested to talk through some of these standards. You're a bit of an expert, though. You've got

1:01.8

an actual PhD in neuropsychology, is that right? Neuroscience, yeah. So neuropsychology is a

1:08.6

slightly different field. My bachelor's is psychology.

1:12.2

My PhD is neuroscience.

1:13.9

You can see how I would confuse those things.

1:15.4

Okay.

1:15.7

Yes, it is very understandable.

1:18.6

So we're going to be drawing in that today to talk about scientific expertise and lie detectors specifically, but about the classic Frye standard, which is something I knew about the Frye standard, but I did not know about Frye itself as a case. It's super interesting. We're going to talk a little bit about the history of the lie detector and then Fry as a standard and sort of what it means and what it takes to get evidence into court. What is a scientific expert? This is actually a case from 1923. This does not have anything to do with the Warren in court, but it's still good law in a sense, at least in New York, and some other places.

1:47.6

It's a really good look at how science gets used in court. So it's a great one for us to talk about, and I'm interested to hear more about your perspective on Frye v. U.S. and light detectors generally, because it's not something I knew that much about.

1:58.7

So we'll be back in a moment, and we'll get to it.

2:03.6

The most interesting thing... generally because it's not something I knew that much about. So we'll back in a moment, and we'll get to it.

2:07.6

The most interesting thing that we have to talk about in all of this is, of course,

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Opening Arguments Media LLC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Opening Arguments Media LLC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.