be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue the claim further. We agree. The trial court’s instruction to the jury was correct as this Court expressly held in Saunders that a defendant’s willingness to submit to a polygraph is not generally admissible because lie detector tests are judicially unacceptable and a defendant’s willingness to take one is merely a self-serving act or declaration which could be made without any possible risk. Id. at 445-46. Elliott neither distinguishes Saunders, nor suggests that we reexamine its holding. While this Court has refined the law relating to lie detector references by explaining that every reference to a lie detector test may not be prejudicial and warrant the grant of a new trial, see Commonwealth v. Fortenbaugh, — Pa. —, 69 A.3d 191, 195 (2013) (<HOLDING>), the Saunders holding regarding the general
holding that evidence of a witnessess refusal to take a polygraph exam is inadmissible holding that in order to raise prejudicial comments of trial court on appeal defendant must object to comments when made and move for a mistrial holding that not every mention of a polygraph is prejudicial or worthy of a mistrial 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 evidence that a polygraph test was offered to or refused by a defendant was not admissible