Charles R. Honts Discredited by Federal Judge

[George W. Maschke]

A federal judge has called into question the credibility and candor of renowned polygrapher Charles R. Honts, a professor of psychology at Boise State University who advocates the admissibility of polygraph results. Magistrate Judge Janet F. King offered remarkably scathing criticism of Honts in a "Report and Recommendation" dated 4 October 2005 following a Daubert hearing into the admissibility of polygraph evidence in U.S. v. Ricardo C. Williams, Case No. 1:03-CR-636-5-JEC:

https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/williams/us-v-williams-daubert-report.pdf

See pp. 13-18, 24, 30-31, and the footnotes at pp. 21, 26, 29.

Judge King ultimately recommended that the defendant's motion to introduce the results of his polygraph examination be denied.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Excellent post, George.

I really enjoyed reading the Court's decision.  Although as a polygrapher I disagree with some of the Court's reasoning, there is no denying that the polygrapher in this case was in error when he incorporated relevant material within his comparison questions.  As I read the test questions used, I immediately wondered how an examinee could possibly, under the natural duress of a polygraph examination, differentiate between the relevant questions and the control questions and respond accordingly.  I would tend to believe the inconclusive result over the no deception indicated result.

Charles Honts has participated in polygraph studies that are often cited by both the "anti-" people and the "pro-" people to support their differing opinions.  Both can't be right, and yet both use Honts' studies to back their views.  And now we see in this court case that Honts himself wants to have it both ways on several occasions during his testimony.  Very interesting. Thank you.

[stefano]

It's refreshing to see a university professor pulled on the carpet; their arrogance is often appalling and they are rarely held accountable. (not picking on Dr. Honts as most share the same annoying attributes).

The question formulation in the subject PDD exam is amateurish. CQ's 6 and 9, while being somewhat exclusionary in time, they are too much like relevant questions which can compete with the relevant questions via anti-climatic dampening. RQ's R6 and R10 use language like "being made aware" or "have an agreement" which are weak and can solicit conjecture.

[honestabe]

This is one of the most positive posts on the forum. So many of the stories we read don't make sense, and this was a refreshing find for me. Thanks for the information.