v. Atlantic City Police Dep’t, 174 F.3d 95, 110 (3d Cir.1999). Erroneous evidentiary rulings will be considered harmless if “it is highly probable that the district court’s [evidentiary decision] did not affect [the party’s] substantial rights.” Becker v. ARCO Chem. Co., 207 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir.2000). Rulings of the appellate courts on the admissibility of results of polygraph tests have differed. This court has not adopted a per se exclusionary rule. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 816 F.2d 918, 923 (3d Cir.1987) (stating polygraph evidence would have been admissible to rebut defendant’s claim that confession was coerced). More recently, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 588-589, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (<HOLDING>), some trial courts have found polygraph
holding that under fedrevid 702 expert testimony must be reliable to be admissible holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant holding that expert testimony may be admissible even if not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community provided that it qualifies in some other way as reliable under federal rule of evidence 702 holding that expert opinion based on scientific technique is inadmissible unless technique is generally accepted as reliable in relevant scientific community holding that product rule method of dna statistical evidence is now generally accepted in the relevant scientific community