ASTM E2324-04(2011)
(Guide)Standard Guide for PDD Paired Testing
Standard Guide for PDD Paired Testing
SCOPE
1.1 Standard guide for the derivation of quantitative assessments of the credibility of proposed witness testimony through the application of established statistical principles to combinations of PDD examination results, and for the utilization of such assessments in the interests of justice (The Marin Protocol)
1.2 This standard describes circumstances in which proven statistical principles, applied to PDD results, can reliably quantify the trustworthiness or untrustworthiness of witness testimony, and
1.2.1 Delineates requirements necessary to effect the generation 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 witnesses are to be examined,
1.2.1.3 Certification of examiners eligible to conduct examinations,
1.2.1.4 Combinations of results which support strong inferences, and
1.2.1.5 Appropriate uses to which strong inferences can be put.
1.3 Courts and others responsible for adjudicating questions of fact may choose whether and when to invoke paired PDD testing.
1.3.1 This guide expresses the rights and obligations of all participants in order to best serve the interests of justice when it is invoked.
1.3.2 Paired PDD testing must not be invoked in any case in any jurisdiction where to do so would violate the laws of that jurisdiction.
1.3.3 Adherence to these guidelines ensures that the conclusions reached will be valid.
1.4 This standard is directed to the proposed testimony of witnesses in criminal, civil, administrative and family court litigation, regarding factual claims, where
1.4.1 It is unlikely that the witnesses could be honestly mistaken, and
1.4.2 The facts in dispute are such that the case may hinge on whom the trier of fact believes; whenever,
1.4.3 Witnesses on opposite sides of a case offer contradictory testimony.
1.4.4 Two or more witnesses testifying for one side offer mutually corroborating testimony.
General Information
Relations
Standards Content (Sample)
NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: E2324 − 04 (Reapproved 2011)
Standard Guide for
PDD Paired Testing
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2324; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope 1.4.1 It is unlikely that the witnesses could be honestly
mistaken, and
1.1 This is a guide for the derivation of quantitative assess-
1.4.2 The facts in dispute are such that the case may hinge
ments of the credibility of proposed witness testimony through
on whom the trier of fact believes; whenever,
the application of established statistical principles to combina-
1.4.3 Witnesses on opposite sides of a case offer contradic-
tions of PDD examination results, and for the utilization of
tory testimony.
such assessments in the interests of justice (The Marin Proto-
1.4.4 Two or more witnesses testifying for one side offer
col).
mutually corroborating testimony.
1.2 This guide describes circumstances in which proven
statistical principles, applied to PDD results, can reliably 2. Referenced Documents
quantify the trustworthiness or untrustworthiness of witness 2
2.1 ASTM Standards:
testimony, and
E2031 Practice for Quality Control of Psychophysiological
1.2.1 Delineates requirements necessary to effect the gen-
Detection of Deception (Polygraph) Examinations
eration and practical use of such results, including:
1.2.1.1 Criteria regarding witnesses to be examined, 3. Significance and Use
1.2.1.2 Criteria for determining facts upon which witnesses
3.1 The goal of this guide is to reduce the incidence and
are to be examined,
impactofperjuredtestimonyinadministrativeproceedingsand
1.2.1.3 Certification of examiners eligible to conduct
in the criminal, civil and family court systems.
examinations,
3.2 It is a mathematically established statistical principle
1.2.1.4 Combinations of results which support strong
thattheprobabilityoftwoindependenteventsbothoccurringis
inferences, and
the algebraic product of the probabilities of either event
1.2.1.5 Appropriate uses to which strong inferences can be
occurring alone.
put.
3.3 In litigation, the situation frequently arises:
1.3 Courts and others responsible for adjudicating questions
3.3.1 That witnesses from opposite sides offer diametrically
of fact may choose whether and when to invoke paired PDD
contradictory testimony regarding a fact or facts, such that one
testing.
must almost certainly be lying, and
1.3.1 This guide expresses the rights and obligations of all
3.3.2 That witnesses from one side corroborate each other’s
participants in order to best serve the interests of justice when
testimony, such that either both must be telling the truth, or
it is invoked.
both must be lying.
1.3.2 Paired PDD testing must not be invoked in any case in
any jurisdiction where to do so would violate the laws of that 3.4 Where both witnesses are examined regarding a fact:
jurisdiction.
3.4.1 By PDD examiners who have personally established
1.3.3 Adherence to these guidelines ensures that the conclu- that the level of accuracy they are able to achieve meets or
sions reached will be valid.
exceeds requirements established by the courts of the jurisdic-
tion.
1.4 This guide is directed to the proposed testimony of
3.4.2 The results when taken together support a strong
witnesses in criminal, civil, administrative and family court
common inference about the respective deceptiveness of the
litigation, regarding factual claims, where
subjects.
1 2
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E52 on Forensic For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
Psychophysiology and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E52.05 on contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
Psychophysiological Detection of Deception (PDD). Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2011. Published November 2011. Originally the ASTM website.
approved in 2004. Last previous edition approved in 2004 as E2324 – 04 (2011). Press, S.J., Bayesian Statistics: Principles, Models, and Applications, John
DOI: 10.1520/E2324-04R11. Wiley & Sons: New York, 1989.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E2324 − 04 (2011)
3.4.3 Iftheminimumaccuracyissetat86 %,theprobability excluding, impeaching or rebutting testimony by prosecution
that the inference will be wrong is less than 2.00 %. If the witnesses regarding those facts, without compromising their
minimum accuracy is set at 90 %, the probability that the rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments or being
inference will be wrong is no higher than 1.00 %. obliged themselves to later testify regarding that fact.
4.2.4 Neither a finding of deceptiveness nor the refusal of a
3.5 When more than two witnesses are examined by such
witness to be examined should be used in any proceeding for
examiners about a fact and all results support a common
any purpose other than exclusion, impeachment or rebuttal of
inferenceaboutthedeceptivenessofthesubjectsregardingthat
testimony.
fact, the probability that the inference will be wrong is even
4.2.5 The challenging attorneys are responsible to specify
lower, in accordance with the statistical principle.
the fact or facts about which witnesses are to be examined.
3.6 The validity of this guide rests on evidence that com-
4.2.6 The judge or presiding officer should exercise reason-
petent examiners are personally capable of achieving sufficient
able discretion to reject a request regarding a fact on the
accuracy.
grounds that the fact is not potentially dispositive, or is not
3.6.1 Determination of examiners’ competence must be
likelytobeknowntomorethanonewitness,suchasaperson’s
based not primarily on their training, years of experience, or
state of mind.
the number of tests they have conducted, but on their person-
4.2.7 The PDD examiners are responsible for the formula-
ally demonstrated capability of the participating examiners.
tion of the actual wording of the questions.
3.7 The conditions and procedures outlined in this guide
4.3 Deterrents to Abuse:
shall be known as the “Marin Protocol,” for the originator.
4.3.1 Where examinations administered pursuant to this
guide result in a determination of deceptiveness regarding one
4. Procedures
party’s testimony, and a determination of non-deceptiveness in
4.1 A litigant should be entitled, by offering to have his or
regard to the opposing witness, that party whose witness has
her own witness(es) undergo polygraph examinations by cer-
beenfounddeceptiveshallordinarilybearthecostsofthePDD
tified examiner(s) regarding potentially dispositive facts, to
examinations and all other costs incurred in the application of
request a ruling from the presiding judicial authority that the
the guide to those witnesses.
witness(es) from the opposing side who intend to offer contra-
4.3.2 It is important to discourage the frivolous invocation
dictory testimony be examined by certified examiner(s) con-
of this guide, particularly in furtherance of false accusations of
cerning those facts.
police misconduct such as coercion of confessions or planting
4.1.1 Afact should be deemed “potentially dispositive” if a
of evidence. The court or presiding officer should advise the
finding in regard to it, in either direction, could be decisive to
offering (accusing) party that if he or she is found deceptive
the verdict. For example, where the fact at issue is whether an
and the accused law enforcement officer is found non-
item of evidence had been fabricated, then even though a
deceptive, the frivolous accuser may be subject to sanctions
finding that it had not been fabricated might not be decisive,
including referral of the incident for possible prosecution.
thefactatissuewouldneverthelessbe“potentiallydispositive”
4.3.3 If a witness is deemed unsuitable or non cooperative
if a finding that the item was genuine could be decisive.
for PDD testing by the polygraph examiner the Marin Protocol
4.1.2 An otherwise potentially dispositive fact may be
shall be null and void and without effect. The testing examiner
adjudged to be not potentially dispositive if supervening
shall specify the reason(s) for a decision of unsuitablility or
irrefragable evidence such as videotape or forensic materials is
non cooperation.
available regarding that fact.
4.3.4 Except in extraordinary circumstances, witnesses ex-
4.2 A party’s offer must specify the facts on which each
amined pursuant to a request under this protocol should be
witness is to be examined.
examined by different examiners. Insofar as practical, the
4.2.1 Where a litigant offers to have any witnesses exam-
examinations should be conducted simultaneously.
ined about a fact, that offer must apply to all witnesses of the
4.3.5 To prevent conflicts of interest and minimize the
litigant intending to testify about that fact.
occurrence or appearance of impropriety, when a party’s
4.2.2 To satisfy the statistical probability requirements, and
witness has been found deceptive or a witness of the opponent
to ensure perjured testimony is not offered by secondary
has been found non-deceptive by examinations conducted
witnesses, all witnesses from the opposing side who intend to
pursuant to this guide, the party or the court may request that
testify about that fact must either undergo PDD examination,
the relevant videotapes and all other work products be submit-
or refuse on the record to do so. The presiding officer should
ted for a quality assurance review in compliance with Practice
treat a refusal to undergo PDD examination in regard to a fact
E2031.
by any witness other than the defendant in a criminal proceed-
4.3.5.1 When quality assurance process is initiated, the
ing as equivalent to a finding of deception.
videotapes and all other work products shall be submitted
4.2.3 Defendants in criminal proceedings should have the
through a disinterested intermediary to an independent, quality
right to offer to undergo PDD examination pursuant to this
control reviewer, certified at an accuracy of at least 86 % for
protocol in regard to dispositive facts for the purpose of
both deceptive and non-deceptive conclusive results.
4.3.5.2 When a reviewer believes that the materials warrant
a result different from that of the original examiner, he shall
Marin,J.,“Hesaid/Shesaid:Polygraphevidenceincourt,”Polygraph,Vol29,
No. 4, 2000, pp. 299–304. state in writing the specific reasons for his objection, and his
E2324 − 04 (2011
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.