a condition requiring Carswell to submit to a polygraph examination is appropriate, a trial court cannot "coerce a defendant to agree to the admissibility of evidence that otherwise would be inadmissible because it has not been found to be scientifically reliable." Patton v. State, 580 N.E.2d 693, 699 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trams. denied. Therefore, the results of the polygraph examination are not admissible in a subsequent court proceeding and this portion of the condition is stricken. See id. However, we note that said results are admissible in a probation revocation proceeding because a probation revocation hearing is not an adversarial eriminal proceeding, but a civil matter which requires more flexible procedures. See, e.g., Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind.1999), reh'g demied (<HOLDING>). Id. at 1265-66. As in Carswell, we find that
holding that hearsay evidence does not violate the confrontation clause if declarant is unavailable and it bears adequate indicia of reliability holding that witness hearsay statements may be admitted whenever they bear sufficient indicia of reliability even without crossexamination holding that judges may consider any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia of reliability including reliable hearsay in a probation revocation hearing holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence holding that the district court did not err in relying on hearsay evidence where the government offered reasons why its hearsay evidence had indicia of reliability and the court considered the reliability of the evidence in deciding the weight to give the hearsay evidence