Excuse for 'Deceptive' Conclusion on Polygraph? A Precedent?
@ChuckMaureen Thanks for your post. I hope this addresses your question more directly than some of the earlier responses. If not, feel free to reword your question, so we try to better respond.
1) You 'could claim' all you want over and over, for hours or days on end.
Whom are you going to tell - LE questioning/interviewing you?
2) Precedent?* A term usu applied by a court in rendering a decision, not to LE interrogations.
@Twistinginthewind provided info re research of effect of sleep deprivation on PGT subjects. Your no-sleep claim does not obligate LE to conclude that sleep deprivation is the cause of 'deceptive' results and that research does not mean you are entitled to a second PGT. LE is not precluded from believing you were being deceptive in your answers and can continue its investigation of you as a POI or suspect, and w sufficient evidence, you can be arrested, indicted, etc. No precedent in legal sense.
3) More importantly: Information re your having taken a PGT and the results are not admissible as evd in court, so not a factor in DA/Prosecutor trying to prove your guilt in the crime charged. IOW, if you have a perfectly legit, science-backed, peer-reviewed, research-supported reason for 'flunking' PGT, so what? Not going to be admitted in evidence.
jmo, could be wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------
* Precedent legal definition of precedent - Legal Dictionary
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/precedent
Precedent. A court decision that is cited as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law in later cases. The Anglo-American common-law tradition is built on the doctrine of Stare Decisis ("stand by decided matters"), which directs a court to look to past decisions for guidance on how to decide a case before it.
Thanks, @al66pine. Even though @ChuckMaureen was being facetious, this is useful info.
Now if I could only pronounce your username...
MOO