|
Author
|
Topic: U.S. v. Ricardo Williams: Lessons to be learned?
|
Dan Mangan
Member
|
posted 04-29-2007 11:24 AM
 
Everyone,Below are a few snippets from a fascinating court case -- United States V. Ricardo Williams -- that I found on Georgie's site. Primarily, George was out to bash Honts with this piece, but the case decision is worth reading because it's rife with issues that we face. Take a look. Here's the link: https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/williams/us-v-williams-daubert-report.pdf IMHO, there are many lessons to be learned here. BTW, I don't recall offhand if this has already appeared in the APA Polygraph journal, but parts of it do sound familiar to me... Here are some highlights from the federal magistrate's decision disallowing poly results in US v. Williams: "Given the uniform agreement that DODPI is the “Cadillac” of polygraph
examination training and standards, the court declines to look to other practices and standards. (Tr. at 148)." "...and especially in light of the fact this polygraph examination was not videotaped, the potential for unfair prejudice to the Government is enhanced." "A comparison question referencing the relevant conduct becomes a relevant question and compromises the examination." "He [defendant's examiner] initially testified that DODPI scoring rules allow for skipping around the test questions to compare physiological responses between comparison questions and relevant questions. But he qualified that testimony by indicating, “That’s my best recollection of what was being done in the late 1980’s.” And as they say on those cheesy TV ads, "But wait, there's more!" Methinks the moral of this story (at least one of 'em) rhymes with ASTM... Again, here's the link: https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/williams/us-v-williams-daubert-report.pdf Dan IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 04-29-2007 12:44 PM
Thanks Dan,I hadn't had a chance to read it yet. I think the moral of the story might be once again that we don't really want the polygraph in court yet. Its just asking for trouble. r ------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 04-30-2007 08:36 AM
Isn't it sad that we are our own worst enemies. Again, we can't agree on our own science. The court made findings that the science doesn't support, which is typical, but judges usually don't understand science - and as you see here, they really don't care. Dr. Honts seems to either take a brutal beating or come out shining like a star. There's not much of an in between with him.IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 05-03-2007 02:01 PM
I think we beat ourselves up more than others beat us up. My brother-in-law is a medical malpractice attorney. He makes a very good living by finding very educated medical professionals willing to eloquently and scientifically "gut" a fellow medical professional on the stand in front 12 jurors and a judge who don't have a clue what they're hearing or whose science is actually right.It doesn't matter if it's a cardiologist, oncologist, psychiatrist or gynecologist, you can always find a fellow expert willing to disembowel them if the daily “consulting fee” is adequate. Their opinions are just that; opinions. We have disagreements over testing procedures and methods in polygraph. We fight over testing protocols and test evaluation methods yet we rarely differ greatly on actual results. Fortunately, we can take the average thief, test him using a federal ZCT, Backster You-Phase, Utah PLC test or the Quadri-track and the result will be the same. If he stole the goodies, he will fail the test. If he didn’t steal the goodies in question, he should pass the test, providing a proper pre-test was conducted. I’m convinced that after an hour of proper pre-test preparation, we can ask the average person “Did you do it?”, Are you the one who did it? and “Was it you who did it? On any basic criminal specific test and get valid results.
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 05-03-2007 03:48 PM
quote:
Fortunately, we can take the average thief, test him using a federal ZCT, Backster You-Phase, Utah PLC test or the Quadri-track and the result will be the same. If he stole the goodies, he will fail the test. If he didn’t steal the goodies in question, he should pass the test, providing a proper pre-test was conducted.
I agree, but how do we know that? Can we prove it? That's a different question, and it's one we better be able to answer or we'll all be dinosaurs soon. It's not enough to have a good feeling about things. How many tests have you seen in which examiners make reverse calls? Who's right? Is there a way to know, or do we go with out instincts. Charles Honts tried to make your argument, and he was skinned and burned - after he was found to be witness who was not to be trusted. Now the court was wrong here as Charles has testified about cases et al about polygraph he didn't like. My guess is the decision was made in advance, but I obviously don't know that to be true. IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 05-04-2007 11:39 AM
I hope you're not saying that because a judge says something it makes it true. We've got absolute nut cases out there who are judges. When they speak it is always an opinion, either their own, or based upon an opinion of some other judge. The mere fact that this particular judge made that statement gives it no more credibility than if anyone else said it. I personally agree with what Dr. Honts says about polygraph. I suspect this judge, as many others do, has a personal bias against polygraph and his mind was made up pre-case.IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 05-04-2007 02:34 PM
quote:
I hope you're not saying that because a judge says something it makes it true.
Where'd you get that from? Of course I don't believe that. However, when a court issues an opinion, it is based on its findings of fact, so we could once again get into a game of semantics. There are scientific "facts" and legal "facts," and they aren't always consistent. (Look at the several courts findings on eyewitness memory verses the scientific literature.) We should also add that just because a scientist says something it doesn't make it true. We've still got to look at the evidence and make sure their conclusions are valid. I also said... quote:
My guess is the decision was made in advance, but I obviously don't know that to be true.
I thought I was being pretty clear that this judge seemed to have made his decision before he even met Charles Honts. That, however, is just my opinion, based on what I read. You may agree with Dr. Honts - as do I, but the question is always, "On what basis are we able to make that assertion?" It is one that requires proof. There is still a flat earth society out there. I could dismiss them as nuts (and I do), but that doesn't prove the world is round. Again, Charles made your argument (with which I agree), and my guess is he wasn't allowed to offer the full reasons (proof) for his conclusions, but I don't know that either. We aren't at the point at which we can walk into a court room and say, "this works so that will work." We've still got to be prepared to defend everything. If we don't start thinking like that, the court "facts" will run us out of business. Look at hypnosis. We do know it enhances memory if done right, and we know it can be done so that only info that is later corroborated is used (e.g. a registration number). If hypnosis can lead to false memories (and it can), why would a court exclude hypnotically refreshed memory for a plate number that resulted in a name for a fingerprint match? For years fingerprints were admitted without question, and now police have been losing cases because they haven't been prepared to offer the scientific evidence to support their conclusions. My point is - if I haven't been clear - the days of "it just works" or "I said so" are over. We can either accept that "fact"" or die a slow death. [This message has been edited by Barry C (edited 05-04-2007).] IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
