include: the presence of any additional evidence which corroborates the proffered hearsay; the type of and centrality of the issue that the hearsay is being offered to prove; and the source of the hearsay, including the possibility of bias or motive to fabricate. This is not an all-inclusive list, as other factors may affect a court’s evaluation of reliability. Furthermore, the facts and circumstances of a particular case may undermine the trustworthiness of hearsay evidence that otherwise might enjoy a high degree of reliability. Compare United States v. Penn, 721 F.2d 762, 765-66 (11th Cir.1983) (noting the general reliability of urinalysis drug tests and permitting admission in probation revocation hearing) with Wilson v. State, 70 Md.App. 527, 534, 521 A.2d 1257, 1261 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Courts have looked to various considerations
holding admissibility of polygraph evidence should be resolved under fedrevid 403 balancing test but reliability of polygraph test may be included to determine how probative particular polygraph test is holding that jurisdiction exists if either the pluralitys test or kennedys test is met holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation recognizing that other courts have found the type of test reliable but finding that this particular urinalysis test was unreliable since the lab did not perform a backup test or identify lab test results and state left questions about how probationers diabetes affected the results holding that defendant may contest foundational facts but not otherwise challenge admissibility of test results