State v. Sharma (May 11, 2007), Case No. 06-09-3248, (Order on Defendant's Motion to Admit Polygraph Examination and to Dismiss): Summit County Common Pleas Court Judge Judith Hunter ruled that a defendant in a rape case may introduce his polygraph examination as evidence, even though the prosecutor did not stipulate to its admission. Prior Ohio case law held that lie detector tests are only allowed if both the prosecutor and the defendant stipulate that it may come into evidence. See State v. Souel (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 123. Judge Hunter found that, "Given the advancements in polygraph testing since 1978, this court finds that the Sixth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment warrant the admission of non-stipulated polygraph evidence, in this limited situation, in which the trial court has independently found that the prooffered polygraph is reliable under Evid.R. 702 and only when the polygraphist is subject to cross-examination, and where limited jury instructions are utilized, as required in Souel .
See Judge OKs Lie Detector Tests in Sex Case by James Ewinger, The Plain Dealer, May 16, 2007.