ASTM E2324-04
(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NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.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
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 1.4.2 The facts in dispute are such that the case may hinge
on whom the trier of fact believes; whenever,
1.1 Standard guide for the derivation of quantitative assess-
1.4.3 Witnesses on opposite sides of a case offer contradic-
ments of the credibility of proposed witness testimony through
tory testimony.
the application of established statistical principles to combina-
1.4.4 Two or more witnesses testifying for one side offer
tions of PDD examination results, and for the utilization of
mutually corroborating testimony.
such assessments in the interests of justice (The Marin Proto-
col)
2. Referenced Documents
1.2 This standard describes circumstances in which proven
2.1 ASTM Standards:
statistical principles, applied to PDD results, can reliably
E2000 Guide for Minimum Basic Education and Training
quantify the trustworthiness or untrustworthiness of witness
of Individuals Involved in the Detection of Deception
testimony, and
(PDD)
1.2.1 Delineates requirements necessary to effect the gen-
E2031 Practice for Quality Control of Psychophysiological
eration and practical use of such results, including:
Detection of Deception (Polygraph) Examinations
1.2.1.1 Criteria regarding witnesses to be examined,
E2035 Terminology Relating to Forensic Psychophysiology
1.2.1.2 Criteria for determining facts upon which witnesses
E2062 Guide for PDD Examination Standards of Practice
are to be examined,
E2065 Guide for Ethical Requirements for Psychophysi-
1.2.1.3 Certificationofexaminerseligibletoconductexami-
ological Detection of Deception (PDD) Examiners
nations,
1.2.1.4 Combinations of results which support strong infer-
3. Significance and Use
ences, and
3.1 The goal of this standard is to reduce the incidence and
1.2.1.5 Appropriate uses to which strong inferences can be
impactofperjuredtestimonyinadministrativeproceedingsand
put.
in the criminal, civil and family court systems.
1.3 Courts and others responsible for adjudicating questions
3.2 It is a mathematically established statistical principle
of fact may choose whether and when to invoke paired PDD
thattheprobabilityoftwoindependenteventsbothoccurringis
testing.
the algebraic product of the probabilities of either event
1.3.1 This guide expresses the rights and obligations of all
occurring alone. (Press, S. J., Bayesian Statistics: Principles,
participants in order to best serve the interests of justice when
Models, and Applications, John Wiley & Sons: New York,
it is invoked.
1989)
1.3.2 Paired PDD testing must not be invoked in any case in
3.3 In litigation, the situation frequently arises:
any jurisdiction where to do so would violate the laws of that
3.3.1 That witnesses from opposite sides offer diametrically
jurisdiction.
contradictory testimony regarding a fact or facts, such that one
1.3.3 Adherence to these guidelines ensures that the conclu-
must almost certainly be lying, and
sions reached will be valid.
3.3.2 That witnesses from one side corroborate each other’s
1.4 This standard is directed to the proposed testimony of
testimony, such that either both must be telling the truth, or
witnesses in criminal, civil, administrative and family court
both must be lying.
litigation, regarding factual claims, where
3.4 Where both witnesses are examined regarding a fact:
1.4.1 It is unlikely that the witnesses could be honestly
3.4.1 By PDD examiners who have personally established
mistaken, and
that the level of accuracy they are able to achieve meets or
exceeds requirements established by the courts of the jurisdic-
This guide is under the jurisdiction ofASTM Committee E52 on Psychophysi-
tion.
ology and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E52.05 on Psychophysiologi-
3.4.2 The results when taken together support a strong
cal Detection of Deceptin (PDD).
common inference about the respective deceptiveness of the
Current edition approved May 1, 2004. Published June 2004. DOI: 10.1520/
E2324-04. subjects.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
E2324–04
3.4.3 Iftheminimumaccuracyissetat86 %,theprobability 4.2.4 Neither a finding of deceptiveness nor the refusal of a
that the inference will be wrong is less than 2.00 %. If the witness to be examined should be used in any proceeding for
minimum accuracy is set at 90 %, the probability that the any purpose other than exclusion, impeachment or rebuttal of
inference will be wrong is no higher than 1.00 %. testimony.
3.5 When more than two witnesses are examined by such
4.2.5 The challenging attorneys are responsible to specify
examiners about a fact and all results support a common
the fact or facts about which witnesses are to be examined.
inferenceaboutthedeceptivenessofthesubjectsregardingthat
4.2.6 The judge or presiding officer should exercise reason-
fact, the probability that the inference will be wrong is even
able discretion to reject a request regarding a fact on the
lower, in accordance with the statistical principle.
grounds that the fact is not potentially dispositive, or is not
3.6 The validity of this standard rests on evidence that
likelytobeknowntomorethanonewitness,suchasaperson’s
competent examiners are personally capable of achieving
state of mind.
sufficient accuracy.
4.2.7 The PDD examiners are responsible for the formula-
3.6.1 Determination of examiners’ competence must be
tion of the actual wording of the questions.
based not primarily on their training, years of experience, or
4.3 Deterrents to Abuse:
the number of tests they have conducted, but on their person-
4.3.1 Where examinations administered pursuant to this
ally demonstrated capability of the participating examiners.
standard result in a determination of deceptiveness regarding
3.7 The conditions and procedures outlined in this standard
one party’s testimony, and a determination of non-
shall be known as the “Marin Protocol,” for the originator
deceptiveness in regard to the opposing witness, that party
(Marin, 2000, Polygraph, 29(4), pp. 299-304).
whose witness has been found deceptive shall ordinarily bear
4. Procedures
the costs of the PDD examinations and all other costs incurred
in the application of the standard to those witnesses.
4.1 A litigant should be entitled, by offering to have his or
her own witness(es) undergo polygraph examinations by cer-
4.3.2 It is important to discourage the frivolous invocation
tified examiner(s) regarding potentially dispositive facts, to
of this standard, particularly in furtherance of false accusations
request a ruling from the presiding judicial authority that the
of police misconduct such as coercion of confessions or
witness(es) from the opposing side who intend to offer contra-
planting of evidence. The court or presiding officer should
dictory testimony be examined by certified examiner(s) con-
advise the offering (accusing) party that if he/she is found
cerning those facts.
deceptive and the accused law enforcement officer is found
4.1.1 Afact should be deemed “potentially dispositive” if a
non- deceptive, the frivolous accuser may be subject to
finding in regard to it, in either direction, could be decisive to
sanctions including referral of the incident for possible pros-
theverdict.Example:Wherethefactatissueiswhetheranitem
ecution.
of evidence had been fabricated, then even though a finding
4.3.3 If a witness is deemed unsuitable or non cooperative
that it had not been fabricated might not be decisive, the fact at
for PDD testing by the polygraph examiner the Marin Protocol
issue would nevertheless be “potentially dispositive” if a
shall be null and void and without effect.The testing examiner
finding that the item was genuine could be decisive.
shall specify the reason(s) for a decision of unsuitablility or
4.1.2 An otherwise potentially dispositive fact may be
non cooperation.
adjudged to be not potentially dispositive if supervening
4.3.4 Except in extraordinary circumstances, witnesses ex-
irrefragable evidence such as videotape or forensic materials is
amined pursuant to a request under this protocol should be
available regarding that fact.
examined by different examiners. Insofar as practical, the
4.2 A party’s offer must specify the facts on which each
examinations should be conducted simultaneously.
witness is to be examined.
4.3.5 To prevent conflicts of interest and minimize the
4.2.1 Where a litigant offers to have any witnesses exam-
occurrence or appearance of impropriety, when a party’s
ined about a fact, that offer must apply to all witnesses of the
witness has been found deceptive or a witness of the opponent
litigant intending to testify about that fact.
has been found non-deceptive by examinations conducted
4.2.2 To satisfy the statistical probability requirements, and
pursuant to this standard, the party or the court may request
to ensure perjured testimony is not offered by secondary
that the relevant videotapes and all other work products be
witnesses, all witnesses from the opposing side who intend to
submitted for a quality assurance review in compliance with
testify about that fact must either undergo PDD examination,
Practice E2031.
or refuse on the record to do so. The presiding officer should
4.3.5.1 When quality assurance process is initiated, the
treat a refusal to undergo PDD examination in regard to a fact
videotapes and all other work products shall be submitted
by any witness other than the defendant in a criminal proceed-
through a disinterested intermediary to an independent, quality
ing as equivalent to a finding of deception.
control reviewer, certified at an accuracy of at least 86 % for
4.2.3 Defendants in criminal proceedings should have the
both deceptive and non-deceptive conclusive results.
right to offer to undergo PDD examination pursuant to this
protocol in regard to dispositive facts for the purpose of 4.3.5.2 When a reviewer believes that the materials warrant
excluding, impeaching or rebutting testimony by prosecution a result different from that of the original examiner, he shall
witnesses regarding those facts, without compromising their state in writing the specific reasons for his objection, and his
rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments or being opinion as to the correct result. The videotape and the charts
obliged themselves to later testify regarding that
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.