ASTM E2324-04(2017)

This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Designation: E2324 − 04 (Reapproved 2017)
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
1.5 This international standard was developed in accor-
statistical principles, applied to PDD results, can reliably
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
quantify the trustworthiness or untrustworthiness of witness
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the
testimony, and
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom-
1.2.1 Delineates requirements necessary to effect the gen-
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical
eration and practical use of such results, including:
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
1.2.1.1 Criteria regarding witnesses to be examined,
1.2.1.2 Criteria for determining facts upon which witnesses
2. Referenced Documents
are to be examined,
2.1 ASTM Standards:
1.2.1.3 Certification of examiners eligible to conduct
E2031 Practice for Quality Control of Psychophysiological
examinations,
Detection of Deception (Polygraph) Examinations
1.2.1.4 Combinations of results which support strong
inferences, and
3. Significance and Use
1.2.1.5 Appropriate uses to which strong inferences can be
3.1 The goal of this guide is to reduce the incidence and
put.
impactofperjuredtestimonyinadministrativeproceedingsand
1.3 Courts and others responsible for adjudicating questions
in the criminal, civil and family court systems.
of fact may choose whether and when to invoke paired PDD
3.2 It is a mathematically established statistical principle
testing.
thattheprobabilityoftwoindependenteventsbothoccurringis
1.3.1 This guide expresses the rights and obligations of all
the algebraic product of the probabilities of either event
participants in order to best serve the interests of justice when
occurring alone.
it is invoked.
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
testimony, such that either both must be telling the truth, or
1.4 This guide is directed to the proposed testimony of
both must be lying.
witnesses in criminal, civil, administrative and family court
litigation, regarding factual claims, where
3.4 Where both witnesses are examined regarding a fact:
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, 2017. Published October 2017. Originally the ASTM website.
approved in 2004. Last previous edition approved in 2011 as E2324 – 04 (2011). Press, S.J., Bayesian Statistics: Principles, Models, and Applications, John
DOI: 10.1520/E2324-04R17. Wiley & Sons: New York, 1989.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E2324 − 04 (2017)
3.4.1 By PDD examiners who have personally established or refuse on the record to do so. The presiding officer should
that the level of accuracy they are able to achieve meets or treat a refusal to undergo PDD examination in regard to a fact
exceeds requirements established by the courts of the jurisdic- by any witness other than the defendant in a criminal proceed-
tion. ing as equivalent to a finding of deception.
3.4.2 The results when taken together support a strong
4.2.3 Defendants in criminal proceedings should have the
common inference about the respective deceptiveness of the
right to offer to undergo PDD examination pursuant to this
subjects.
protocol in regard to dispositive facts for the purpose of
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
lower, in accordance with the statistical principle.
4.2.5 The challenging attorneys are responsible to specify
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
shall be known as the “Marin Protocol,” for the originator.
4.3 Deterrents to Abuse:
4.3.1 Where examinations administered pursuant to this
4. Procedures
guide result in a determination of deceptiveness regarding one
4.1 A litigant should be entitled, by offering to have his or
party’s testimony, and a determination of non-deceptiveness in
her own witness(es) undergo polygraph examinations by cer-
regard to the opposing witness, that party whose witness has
tified examiner(s) regarding potentially dispositive facts, to
beenfounddeceptiveshallordinarilybearthecostsofthePDD
request a ruling from the presiding judicial authority that the
examinations and all other costs incurred in the application of
witness(es) from the opposing side who intend to offer contra-
the guide to those witnesses.
dictory testimony be examined by certified examiner(s) con-
4.3.2 It is important to discourage the frivolous invocation
cerning those facts.
of this guide, particularly in furtherance of false accusations of
4.1.1 Afact should be deemed “potentially dispositive” if a
police misconduct such as coercion of confessions or planting
finding in regard to it, in either direction, could be decisive to
of evidence. The court or presiding officer should advise the
the verdict. For example, where the fact at issue is whether an
offering (accusing) party that if he or she is found deceptive
item of evidence had been fabricated, then even though a
and the accused law enforcement officer is found non-
finding that it had not been fabricated might not be decisive,
deceptive, the frivolous accuser may be subject to sanctions
thefactatissuewouldneverthelessbe“potentiallydispositive”
including referral of the incident for possible prosecution.
if a finding that the item was genuine could be decisive.
4.3.3 If a witness is deemed unsuitable or non cooperative
4.1.2 An otherwise potentially dispositive fact may be
for PDD testing by the polygraph examiner the Marin Protocol
adjudged to be not potentially dispositive if supervening
shall be null and void and without effect. The testing examiner
irrefragable evidence such as videotape or forensic materials is
shall specify the reason(s) for a decision of unsuitablility or
available regarding that fact.
non cooperation.
4.2 A party’s offer must specify the facts on which each
4.3.4 Except in extraordinary circumstances, witnesses ex-
witness is to be examined.
amined pursuant to a request under this protocol should be
4.2.1 Where a litigant offers to have any witnesses exam-
examined by different examiners. Insofar as practical, the
ined about a fact, that offer must apply to all witnesses of the
examinations should be conducted simultaneously.
litigant intending to testify about that fact.
4.3.5 To prevent conflicts of interest and minimize the
4.2.2 To satisfy the statistical probability requirements, and
occurrence or appearance of impropriety, when a party’s
to ensure perjured testimony is not offered by secondary
witness has been found deceptive or a witness of the opponent
witnesses, all witnesses from the opposing side who intend to
has been found non-deceptive by examinations conducted
testify about that fact must either undergo PDD examination,
pursuant to this guide, the party or the court may request that
the relevant videotapes and all other work products be submit-
ted for a quality assurance review in compliance with Practice
Marin,J.,“Hesaid/Shesaid:Polygraphevidenceincourt,”Polygraph,Vol29,
No. 4, 2000, pp. 299–304. E2031.
E2324 − 04 (2017)
4.3.5.1 When quality assurance process is initiated, the 5.4.2 This guide does not address and is not affected by the
videotapes and all other work products shall be submitted issue of the scientific basis of PDD or by the issue of the
through a disinterested intermediary
...