ASTM E2324-04(2017) Standard Guide for PDD Paired Testing.pdf

《ASTM E2324-04(2017) Standard Guide for PDD Paired Testing.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASTM E2324-04(2017) Standard Guide for PDD Paired Testing.pdf（4页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Designation: E2324 04 (Reapproved 2017)Standard Guide forPDD Paired Testing1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2324; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parenthes

2、es indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 This is a guide for the derivation of quantitative assess-ments of the credibility of proposed witness testimony throughthe application of established sta

3、tistical principles to combina-tions of PDD examination results, and for the utilization ofsuch assessments in the interests of justice (The Marin Proto-col).1.2 This guide describes circumstances in which provenstatistical principles, applied to PDD results, can reliablyquantify the trustworthiness

4、 or untrustworthiness of witnesstestimony, and1.2.1 Delineates requirements necessary to effect the gen-eration and practical use of such results, including:1.2.1.1 Criteria regarding witnesses to be examined,1.2.1.2 Criteria for determining facts upon which witnessesare to be examined,1.2.1.3 Certi

5、fication of examiners eligible to conductexaminations,1.2.1.4 Combinations of results which support stronginferences, and1.2.1.5 Appropriate uses to which strong inferences can beput.1.3 Courts and others responsible for adjudicating questionsof fact may choose whether and when to invoke paired PDDt

6、esting.1.3.1 This guide expresses the rights and obligations of allparticipants in order to best serve the interests of justice whenit is invoked.1.3.2 Paired PDD testing must not be invoked in any case inany jurisdiction where to do so would violate the laws of thatjurisdiction.1.3.3 Adherence to t

7、hese guidelines ensures that the conclu-sions reached will be valid.1.4 This guide is directed to the proposed testimony ofwitnesses in criminal, civil, administrative and family courtlitigation, regarding factual claims, where1.4.1 It is unlikely that the witnesses could be honestlymistaken, and1.4

8、.2 The facts in dispute are such that the case may hingeon whom the trier of fact believes; whenever,1.4.3 Witnesses on opposite sides of a case offer contradic-tory testimony.1.4.4 Two or more witnesses testifying for one side offermutually corroborating testimony.1.5 This international standard wa

9、s developed in accor-dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-ization established in the Decision on Principles for theDevelopment of International Standards, Guides and Recom-mendations issued by the World Trade Organization TechnicalBarriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.2. Referenc

10、ed Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2E2031 Practice for Quality Control of PsychophysiologicalDetection of Deception (Polygraph) Examinations3. Significance and Use3.1 The goal of this guide is to reduce the incidence andimpact of perjured testimony in administrative proceedings andin the criminal, civil

11、 and family court systems.3.2 It is a mathematically established statistical principlethat the probability of two independent events both occurring isthe algebraic product of the probabilities of either eventoccurring alone.33.3 In litigation, the situation frequently arises:3.3.1 That witnesses fro

12、m opposite sides offer diametricallycontradictory testimony regarding a fact or facts, such that onemust almost certainly be lying, and3.3.2 That witnesses from one side corroborate each otherstestimony, such that either both must be telling the truth, orboth must be lying.3.4 Where both witnesses a

13、re examined regarding a fact:1This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E52 on ForensicPsychophysiology and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E52.05 onPsychophysiological Detection of Deception (PDD).Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2017. Published October 2017. Originallyapp

14、roved in 2004. Last previous edition approved in 2011 as E2324 04 (2011).DOI: 10.1520/E2324-04R17.2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Docu

15、ment Summary page onthe ASTM website.3Press, S.J., Bayesian Statistics: Principles, Models, and Applications, JohnWiley & Sons: New York, 1989.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United StatesThis international standard was developed in

16、 accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for theDevelopment of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.13.4.1 By PDD examiners who

17、 have personally establishedthat the level of accuracy they are able to achieve meets orexceeds requirements established by the courts of the jurisdic-tion.3.4.2 The results when taken together support a strongcommon inference about the respective deceptiveness of thesubjects.3.4.3 If the minimum ac

18、curacy is set at 86 %, the probabilitythat the inference will be wrong is less than 2.00 %. If theminimum accuracy is set at 90 %, the probability that theinference will be wrong is no higher than 1.00 %.3.5 When more than two witnesses are examined by suchexaminers about a fact and all results supp

19、ort a commoninference about the deceptiveness of the subjects regarding thatfact, the probability that the inference will be wrong is evenlower, in accordance with the statistical principle.3.6 The validity of this guide rests on evidence that com-petent examiners are personally capable of achieving

20、 sufficientaccuracy.3.6.1 Determination of examiners competence must bebased not primarily on their training, years of experience, orthe number of tests they have conducted, but on their person-ally demonstrated capability of the participating examiners.3.7 The conditions and procedures outlined in

21、this guideshall be known as the “Marin Protocol,” for the originator.44. Procedures4.1 A litigant should be entitled, by offering to have his orher own witness(es) undergo polygraph examinations by cer-tified examiner(s) regarding potentially dispositive facts, torequest a ruling from the presiding

22、judicial authority that thewitness(es) from the opposing side who intend to offer contra-dictory testimony be examined by certified examiner(s) con-cerning those facts.4.1.1 A fact should be deemed “potentially dispositive” if afinding in regard to it, in either direction, could be decisive tothe ve

23、rdict. For example, where the fact at issue is whether anitem of evidence had been fabricated, then even though afinding that it had not been fabricated might not be decisive,the fact at issue would nevertheless be “potentially dispositive”if a finding that the item was genuine could be decisive.4.1

24、.2 An otherwise potentially dispositive fact may beadjudged to be not potentially dispositive if superveningirrefragable evidence such as videotape or forensic materials isavailable regarding that fact.4.2 A partys offer must specify the facts on which eachwitness is to be examined.4.2.1 Where a lit

25、igant offers to have any witnesses exam-ined about a fact, that offer must apply to all witnesses of thelitigant intending to testify about that fact.4.2.2 To satisfy the statistical probability requirements, andto ensure perjured testimony is not offered by secondarywitnesses, all witnesses from th

26、e opposing side who intend totestify about that fact must either undergo PDD examination,or refuse on the record to do so. The presiding officer shouldtreat a refusal to undergo PDD examination in regard to a factby any witness other than the defendant in a criminal proceed-ing as equivalent to a fi

27、nding of deception.4.2.3 Defendants in criminal proceedings should have theright to offer to undergo PDD examination pursuant to thisprotocol in regard to dispositive facts for the purpose ofexcluding, impeaching or rebutting testimony by prosecutionwitnesses regarding those facts, without compromis

28、ing theirrights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments or beingobliged themselves to later testify regarding that fact.4.2.4 Neither a finding of deceptiveness nor the refusal of awitness to be examined should be used in any proceeding forany purpose other than exclusion, impeachment or rebuttal

29、oftestimony.4.2.5 The challenging attorneys are responsible to specifythe fact or facts about which witnesses are to be examined.4.2.6 The judge or presiding officer should exercise reason-able discretion to reject a request regarding a fact on thegrounds that the fact is not potentially dispositive

30、, or is notlikely to be known to more than one witness, such as a personsstate of mind.4.2.7 The PDD examiners are responsible for the formula-tion of the actual wording of the questions.4.3 Deterrents to Abuse:4.3.1 Where examinations administered pursuant to thisguide result in a determination of

31、deceptiveness regarding onepartys testimony, and a determination of non-deceptiveness inregard to the opposing witness, that party whose witness hasbeen found deceptive shall ordinarily bear the costs of the PDDexaminations and all other costs incurred in the application ofthe guide to those witness

32、es.4.3.2 It is important to discourage the frivolous invocationof this guide, particularly in furtherance of false accusations ofpolice misconduct such as coercion of confessions or plantingof evidence. The court or presiding officer should advise theoffering (accusing) party that if he or she is fo

33、und deceptiveand the accused law enforcement officer is found non-deceptive, the frivolous accuser may be subject to sanctionsincluding referral of the incident for possible prosecution.4.3.3 If a witness is deemed unsuitable or non cooperativefor PDD testing by the polygraph examiner the Marin Prot

34、ocolshall be null and void and without effect. The testing examinershall specify the reason(s) for a decision of unsuitablility ornon cooperation.4.3.4 Except in extraordinary circumstances, witnesses ex-amined pursuant to a request under this protocol should beexamined by different examiners. Insof

35、ar as practical, theexaminations should be conducted simultaneously.4.3.5 To prevent conflicts of interest and minimize theoccurrence or appearance of impropriety, when a partyswitness has been found deceptive or a witness of the opponenthas been found non-deceptive by examinations conductedpursuant

36、 to this guide, the party or the court may request thatthe relevant videotapes and all other work products be submit-ted for a quality assurance review in compliance with PracticeE2031.4Marin, J., “He said / She said: Polygraph evidence in court,” Polygraph, Vol 29,No. 4, 2000, pp. 299304.E2324 04 (

37、2017)24.3.5.1 When quality assurance process is initiated, thevideotapes and all other work products shall be submittedthrough a disinterested intermediary to an independent, qualitycontrol reviewer, certified at an accuracy of at least 86 % forboth deceptive and non-deceptive conclusive results.4.3

38、.5.2 When a reviewer believes that the materials warranta result different from that of the original examiner, he shallstate in writing the specific reasons for his objection, and hisopinion as to the correct result. The videotape and the chartsshall then be submitted to two additional reviewers. If

39、 both ofthose reviewers agree with the original examiner, the examin-ers conclusion shall stand as the official result. If both agreewith the first reviewer, the reviewers conclusion shall be theofficial result. Otherwise, the result shall be officially recordedas inconclusive. The new official resu

40、lt shall be treated for allpurposes as if it were the unchallenged result of an originalexaminer.4.3.5.3 When a reviewer believes that serious deviationsfrom the norms of good practice of the methodology employedby the original examiner preclude a sound conclusion, he shallstate in writing the speci

41、fic reasons for his opinion. Thevideotape and the charts shall then be submitted to twoadditional reviewers. If both of those reviewers agree with theoriginal examiner, the examiners conclusion shall stand as theofficial result. Otherwise, the witness shall be retested by adifferent examiner.5. Excl

42、usionary Application5.1 Either party may offer to have one or more of hiswitnesses undergo examination regarding dispositive facts,thereby challenging the witnesses from the opposing sideintending to testify regarding those facts to do the same.5.1.1 The offer should contain the stipulation that whe

43、reeither partys witness(es) test positive for deception in regardto any facts, and the opposing partys witness(es) test negativein regard to those facts, then the deceptive witness should nottestify in regard to those facts at the discretion of the court.5.2 The PDD results are not admitted into evi

44、dence beforethe finder of fact unless explicitly permitted by the court.5.2.1 The examiners do not appear as experts before thefinder of fact at trial.5.3 Precedents and existing rules concerning the admissibil-ity of polygraph results or the appearance of polygraphexaminers as expert witnesses befo

45、re the finder of fact, bystipulation of the parties or otherwise, are not affected and neednot be modified.5.4 Exclusion under this guide is an embodiment of theprinciple that courts should exclude untrustworthy, confusingand misleading evidence.5.4.1 This exclusionary application of the guide is an

46、alo-gous to and shares the underlying rationale of established rulesof evidence such as those regarding hearsay. It no moreintrudes upon the province of the jury than do such rules, andunlike them is supported by a strong mathematical foundationquantifying the untrustworthiness of the evidence to be

47、 ex-cluded.5.4.2 This guide does not address and is not affected by theissue of the scientific basis of PDD or by the issue of theadmissibility of PDD examination results as scientific evi-dence.5.5 Under the Exclusionary Application of the MarinProtocol, if either partys witness(es) test positive f

48、or deceptionin regard to a fact or refuse to be examined about it, and theother partys witness(es) test negative in regard to that fact andnone test positive, the refusing or deceptive partys witness(es)should be excluded from testifying in regard to that fact at thediscretion of the court.5.5.1 If

49、neither party requests testing of witnesses regardinga fact, the protocol does not apply regarding that fact. theprotocol does not apply regarding that fact.5.5.2 Unedited beginning-to-end videotapes of the exami-nations together with the charts and reports of the examinersand the reports of reviewers shall be made available to thejudge or presiding official.5.5.3 Witnesses should be subject to cross-examination asany other witnesses.5.5.4 Under the Exclusionary Application, in no event shalleither side be permitted to make any reference to the polygraphbefo