Doing this scientific research paper has been quite informative. I knew polygraph test have been criticized for years for their inaccuracy and that they were rarely allowed as evidence in the court room, but the information I've discovered left me more baffled than when I started. I really expected to find, when all my research was done, that the critics might win this one, but in my opinion, the exact opposite is true. I was interested first to learn that the accuracy of the test results on the level of experience and training of the examiner. It is not actually the machine that says whether or not somebody lied. It is the job of the examiner to determine that based on the readings of blood pressure, pulse, etc. I also found it very interesting that while polygraphs are rarely allowed as evidence in a court room, they are very regularly used to hire law enforcement and federal and government employees. It makes no sense that they are good enough for pre-employment screening, but not as evidence. Then as I got further into my research, I discovered the biggest reason polygraphs are not admissible in court is because both sides, the prosecution and defense, have to agree to its admittance as evidence. Obviously that would rarely happen. Judges do have some say so, but usually still with the permission of both sides. That's crazy to me. I think what intrigued me more, is I found information about a study that was done, and that study evaluated how accurate different types of evidence are in a crime. Polygraph tests were #1 on the list for accuracy, followed by handwriting analysis, eye witnesses, and then fingerprints. This was shocking to me. Even after all my research I still have so many questions, but now I have the information I need to petition the DA to push on our case and I'm grateful for that.