5 hours ago, Pumpkin Lizard said:

The anglers are the organization that is calling for polygraphs. That is what you think is embarrassing.

Sure, some are and others aren't. Either way, I can disagree with someone on something without hating them. Hate is a very extreme position that no one should arrive at lightly. I can count the things I truly hate on one hand and none of them are people.

I, like a lot of others in this thread, think that the way BASS uses polygraphs is ridiculous. I also think the major sponsors have too much sway and that all the money is having a negative impact on the sport. I know it may seem crazy, but I can do all that and still actually like people.

12 hours ago, Pumpkin Lizard said:

They do have a camera mounted on the stern. But that doesn't confirm or deny information rule violations.

That's interesting. Are you sure every boat has one?

You'd think that if every boat had one, they'd use that information. Or at least look at it.

In wake of this, here's another interesting article that BASS just put out.

Bassmaster

Open angler disqualified, banned for life - Bassmaster

B.A.S.S. has disqualified angler Yuming Gao from the upcoming Lake Eufaula Bassmaster Open following a violation of the Bassmaster Code of Conduct. After a thorough review, B.A.S.S. determined that an

I don't have much to add to the core of the thread but these two little blurbs:

1) Living in TN I have a metric ton of pro fisherman as clients and I've had more than one tell me they have to be very careful especially when gassing up very close to where they'll be fishing with a wrapped boat and truck. They've told me people will whip out cell phones to video and start giving out random facts or gibberish hoping to get that angler in trouble if they don't like that angler. Now so many pros video their "travel blog" maybe that cuts it off, not sure. I don't hear much going public of anglers getting in trouble this way. So it may not be as prevalent as some have made it out to be to me.

2) I have a client that is very famous and he's on TV a LOT. Dr Phil and many other news type shows studying body language, etc in criminal cases or high profile media things or whatever. He's nice guy and his wife is an absolute dear, but I can't hardly talk to the guy in person, I feel like he's always analyzing me. LOL!

7 hours ago, gim said:

That's interesting. Are you sure every boat has one?

You'd think that if every boat had one, they'd use that information. Or at least look at it.

Yes.

They have to have a Go Pro mounted.

5 hours ago, dickenscpa said:

I don't have much to add to the core of the thread but these two little blurbs:

1) Living in TN I have a metric ton of pro fisherman as clients and I've had more than one tell me they have to be very careful especially when gassing up very close to where they'll be fishing with a wrapped boat and truck. They've told me people will whip out cell phones to video and start giving out random facts or gibberish hoping to get that angler in trouble if they don't like that angler. Now so many pros video their "travel blog" maybe that cuts it off, not sure. I don't hear much going public of anglers getting in trouble this way. So it may not be as prevalent as some have made it out to be to me.

2) I have a client that is very famous and he's on TV a LOT. Dr Phil and many other news type shows studying body language, etc in criminal cases or high profile media things or whatever. He's nice guy and his wife is an absolute dear, but I can't hardly talk to the guy in person, I feel like he's always analyzing me. LOL!

The rules are pretty clear though. You have to be actively soliciting for information.

If you’re in a restaurant or filling up with gas and some fool comes up and starts giving you information without your consent then that’s not a violation. The rules aren’t that draconian from what I have heard on a multiple occasions.

17 hours ago, MontanaBasser said:

Sure, some are and others aren't. Either way, I can disagree with someone on something without hating them. Hate is a very extreme position that no one should arrive at lightly. I can count the things I truly hate on one hand and none of them are people.

I, like a lot of others in this thread, think that the way BASS uses polygraphs is ridiculous. I also think the major sponsors have too much sway and that all the money is having a negative impact on the sport. I know it may seem crazy, but I can do all that and still actually like people.

The consensus among the competitors was to have more polygraphs and crack down. BASS did that in response to their feedback. It is what it is.

And there are people in this thread who don’t understand how B.A.S.S. and the other organizations use polygraphs.

The angler hasn’t even been DQd yet so all this outage is bit premature.

Just now, Pumpkin Lizard said:

The consensus among the competitors was to have more polygraphs and crack down. BASS did that in response to their feedback. It is what it is.

6 hours ago, Pumpkin Lizard said:

The angler hasn’t even been DQd yet so all this outage is bit premature.

That may be so. But in that case we should never hear of it unless it is a DQ or other 'offense'.

18 hours ago, casts_by_fly said:

That may be so. But in that case we should never hear of it unless it is a DQ or other 'offense'.

It wasn't BASS that leaked it. They were the ones who said it was unfortunate that it got out.

"
Attorneys Near Me

• Legal ResourcesCurrent page is within this section

• Lead Counsel Verified

Enter information in at least one field (required)

Legal IssueUse up and down arrow keys to navigate. Touch device users, explore by touch or with swipe gestures.

and
/ or

LocationUse up and down arrow keys to navigate. Touch device users, explore by touch or with swipe gestures.

Criminal Defense Law

1. Home

2. Legal Resources

3. Criminal Defense

4. Are Lie Detector Tests Admissible in Court?

Are Lie Detector Tests Admissible in Court?

By Christina Majaski | Reviewed by Gary Almeter, Esq.

Last updated December 14, 2023

Listen to this article

6 min

Key Takeaways:

• Less than half of U.S. states allow the use of polygraph tests as evidence in criminal trials. 

• In states that allow polygraph tests, the defense can use testimony and evidence to question the test’s results. 

• Never agree to take a lie detector test with the police without first talking to a criminal defense attorney.

• Are Lie Detectors Accurate?

• What States Allow Polygraph Tests in Court?

• The Argument for Lie Detector Admissibility

• How a Lie Detector Test Works

• Should You Take a Polygraph Test?

• Talk to a Criminal Defense Lawyer Today

One of the greatest challenges for judges, juries, and law enforcement officers is determining who is telling the truth. This makes witness believability vitally important at a trial.

While witnesses must promise to tell the truth before taking the stand, judges and juries often hear conflicting testimony that indicates someone is lying. So, a lie detector test could theoretically help the jury determine the truth, but only if the test is reliable and can be used as evidence in court. It turns out that neither is true.

If you are under criminal investigation for potential criminal charges and are being pressured to take a lie detector test or you’ve already taken a test and are worried about it being used against you, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to help you. Your attorney will be able to protect your rights and options for building a strong defense.

Are Lie Detectors Accurate?

In short: Lie detector tests have questionable reliability and are generally not admissible as evidence in court. They can be used in some investigations and for decision-making when applying to some federal employment positions.

It might seem like the technology of the lie detector test, also known as the polygraph test, could take the guesswork out of determining who is lying and who is telling the truth. That’s how many television crime dramas made them look. But the accuracy of lie detector test results can vary depending on the person administering the test, the machine used, and the person taking the test.

As such, polygraph results are generally not admissible in criminal cases unless both parties agree to it. Even then, some states do not allow polygraph tests to be used as evidence, and often a trial judge has discretion to allow (or not) a polygraph exam.

Those who are opposed to allowing the results of lie detector tests to be used in a court of law argue that jurors might accept the test results without considering the test’s accuracy or the threat of false positives. Jurisdictions that allow the results of lie detector tests in court also allow each party to present evidence as to why the test is or is not reliable.

Polygraph test results indicate physiological changes like the test taker’s heart rate differences using control questions like “What is your name?” and then more probing questions which would indicate alleged guilt or innocence.

What States Allow Polygraph Tests in Court?

The U.S. Supreme Court leaves the question of the admissibility of lie detector test evidence up to individual states. Other states do not allow any lie detector evidence.

The criminal justice systems of states that may allow the results of a polygraph test as evidence in a criminal case include:

• Alabama

• Arizona*

• Arkansas

• California*

• Delaware

• Florida*

• Georgia*

• Idaho

• Indiana

• Iowa

• Kansas

• Nevada*

• New Jersey

• New Mexico

• North Dakota

• Ohio

• Utah

• Washington

• Wyoming

States with an asterisk (*) allow lie-detector evidence in certain proceedings or only when both parties agree to its admissibility. In states where they are admissible, you could have expert testimony on your behalf about the unreliability of the test’s results."

www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/are-lie-detector-tests-admissible-in-court.html#what_states_allow_polygraph_tests_in_court

The same info is available elsewhere. Then there are the rules for military courts, different parts of the judicial process and on and on and on.

There are certainly places that don't allow the introduction of the actual printed test results with notations, but do allow the examiner to testify about their opinion of what happened in the little room.

It’s a polygraph, not a lie detector. When used appropriately, they are very accurate and scientifically supportable. They register your body’s physiological stress response in various manners. They are not magic and they do not detect lies. They give the examiner data that can be compared and interpreted based on your physiological response. Anything more or less than that is just conjecture and misinformation.

Here's my opinion. Every angler fishing these tournaments knows before they pay an entry fee that polygraphs will/may be used. The anglers apparently requested more of these test. (At least you read they did), Not a court of law where legal standards (whatever they are) must be met. A test agreed to by the angler prior to entering the competition. Until (if) we get more information, we can only assume that something happened to trigger the test. Without the polygraph as an additional verification, it would only be whomever triggered the tests word against the angler. Something happened. Betcha !!

They do them randomly, whoever finished 30th had to take one and that was Mullins

On 4/2/2026 at 3:30 PM, Pumpkin Lizard said:

Yes.

They have to have a Go Pro mounted.

The rules are pretty clear though. You have to be actively soliciting for information.

If you’re in a restaurant or filling up with gas and some fool comes up and starts giving you information without your consent then that’s not a violation. The rules aren’t that draconian from what I have heard on a multiple occasions.

Good to know, I didn't realize that. I really thought they were that stringent to almost looking to pop you. I do remember Dustin Connell in one of his videos he stopped at a gas station and some guy walked up jabbering and he stopped him and said, "whoa! I can't get info."

1 hour ago, dickenscpa said:

Good to know, I didn't realize that. I really thought they were that stringent to almost looking to pop you. I do remember Dustin Connell in one of his videos he stopped at a gas station and some guy walked up jabbering and he stopped him and said, "whoa! I can't get info."

Yeah you still need to make a reasonable attempt to shut it down. There is a ton of bogus folklore about the rules in the fanbase. Probably because they get info from guys like Randy Blaukat and Slick Johnson.

Looks like he was cleared.

10 minutes ago, Pumpkin Lizard said:

Looks like he was cleared.

Yep. Well kind of sort of...

https://www.bassmaster.com/elite/news/b-a-s-s-statement-regarding-elite-series-angler-david-mullins/

B.A.S.S. statement regarding Elite Series angler David Mullins

Posted onApril 13, 2026

Written by

B.A.S.S.

B.A.S.S. officials confirm that Elite Series angler David Mullins underwent a standard credibility assessment administered via polygraph following the recent Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway event. He was randomly selected for one of the five screening exams performed at each Elite event, which is determined by finishing place ahead of the competition to eliminate the perception of any bias.

During his initial examination he was unable to pass. In accordance with B.A.S.S. rules and established protocols, Mullins exercised his right to appeal, which was granted. As part of that process, he completed a subsequent examination, with an independent Bassmaster-approved examiner, which he passed. 

This outcome affirms the effectiveness and integrity of the B.A.S.S. credibility assessment process, which is designed to ensure fairness while providing anglers with a clear path for appeal.  

All polygraph examinations are performed in accordance with the Bassmaster Credibility Assessment Policy, are subject to a Quality Control review by an independent examiner and can be appealed. 

B.A.S.S. does not comment on the outcome of polygraph examinations until all results are reviewed and final.

Anglers that choose to go public with preliminary results are bringing the spotlight on themselves.

Failure to pass an initial exam does not necessarily mean there is foul play. This is the reason why B.A.S.S. designed a process that has independent checks built in throughout as well as the ability to appeal. As a matter of policy, B.A.S.S. only makes public statements when a disqualification occurs after the credibility assessment process is complete and final. 

B.A.S.S. remains committed to upholding the highest standards of competitive integrity across all events."

On 4/1/2026 at 2:07 PM, Pumpkin Lizard said:

They had a polygraph tech on Bass After Dark and he described how it was used in I think it was MLF. It's an investigative tool, nothing more, nothing less

I haven't watched that one, but the Zaldains had a former MLF tester on a couple years ago. Maybe same guy. It was a very interesting show. Improved my faith in the concept, but highlighted the inherent faults introduced by average test administrators.

12 minutes ago, Choporoz said:

I haven't watched that one, but the Zaldains had a former MLF tester on a couple years ago. Maybe same guy. It was a very interesting show. Improved my faith in the concept, but highlighted the inherent faults introduced by average test administrators.

It was very likely the same guy.

54 minutes ago, FloridaFishinFool said:

Yep. Well kind of sort of...

https://www.bassmaster.com/elite/news/b-a-s-s-statement-regarding-elite-series-angler-david-mullins/

B.A.S.S. statement regarding Elite Series angler David Mullins

Posted onApril 13, 2026

Written by

B.A.S.S.

B.A.S.S. officials confirm that Elite Series angler David Mullins underwent a standard credibility assessment administered via polygraph following the recent Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway event. He was randomly selected for one of the five screening exams performed at each Elite event, which is determined by finishing place ahead of the competition to eliminate the perception of any bias.

During his initial examination he was unable to pass. In accordance with B.A.S.S. rules and established protocols, Mullins exercised his right to appeal, which was granted. As part of that process, he completed a subsequent examination, with an independent Bassmaster-approved examiner, which he passed. 

This outcome affirms the effectiveness and integrity of the B.A.S.S. credibility assessment process, which is designed to ensure fairness while providing anglers with a clear path for appeal.  

All polygraph examinations are performed in accordance with the Bassmaster Credibility Assessment Policy, are subject to a Quality Control review by an independent examiner and can be appealed. 

B.A.S.S. does not comment on the outcome of polygraph examinations until all results are reviewed and final.

Anglers that choose to go public with preliminary results are bringing the spotlight on themselves.

Failure to pass an initial exam does not necessarily mean there is foul play. This is the reason why B.A.S.S. designed a process that has independent checks built in throughout as well as the ability to appeal. As a matter of policy, B.A.S.S. only makes public statements when a disqualification occurs after the credibility assessment process is complete and final. 

B.A.S.S. remains committed to upholding the highest standards of competitive integrity across all events."

If they thought he was even a little guilty he wouldn’t have been cleared.

I think the guy was innocent. But if his polygraph answers sounded anything like the explanations he made on video that I saw then I’m not surprised that his polygraph raised questions.