"Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph" Scientific Truth Verification - Lie Detection Foreword: Charles M. Sevilla, Esquire    Twenty five years ago, I put on a hearing to admit polygraph evidence in a federal court criminal case on behalf of a client I was representing. Although coming close, I failed to convince the court to admit the evidence. See United States v. DeBetham (S.D. Cal. 1972) 348 F.Supp. 1377, aff’d 470 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir. 1972) (admission denied, but trial and appellate courts both noted the evidence for polygraph reliability). That experience stimulated a law career-long interest in the subject such that I have written (1) and lectured on the subject for lawyers and served as a polygraph-law instructor at the Backster School of Lie Detection for the last twenty years.    Almost a quarter century later, I am currently involved in another federal criminal case again attempting to admit evidence that my client (a new one) passed a polygraph test. This time, for two reasons, I may succeed. First, polygraph has made undeniable strides in proving itself a more reliable veracity test. The advent of computerization of the test has done much to guarantee standardization of the administration and scoring of the exam. Second, the long-standing rule of Frye v. United States (D. C. Cir. 1923) 293 F.1013, for admission of scientific evidence--"general acceptance in the field to which it belongs"-- has been supplanted in federal and other jurisdictions with a more inclusionary rule which permits trial courts additional discretion in the admission of the evidence. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) 509 U.S. 579.    The result of these two phenomena is that polygraph evidence is finally penetrating what has been a fairly solid wall of court precedent excluding the polygraph evidence. Published opinions are emerging in criminal cases recognizing the advances in polygraph and cautiously fashioning orders for admission of the evidence. See United States v. Piccinonna (11th Cir. en banc 1989) 885 F.2d 1529 (admission on guilt or innocence); United States v. Posada (5th Cir. 1995) 57 F.3d 428 (admission at suppression pre-trial hearing); United States v. Crumby (D. Ar. 1995) 895 F.Supp. 1354 (D. Ariz. 1995) (admissible on guilt or innocence).    With this trend toward increasing admission of the evidence, there will come an increasing necessity for lawyers and judges to become familiar with polygraph law, history and science. Unfortunately, there has not been a publication available to comprehensively address all three topics.    Until now. Dr. James A. Matte’s Forensic Psychophysiology Using The Polygraph is the best text on the subject I have seen. For too many years there has been a lack of a single resource for polygraphists, lawyers, judges and scientists to resort to learn about polygraph issues. This book will solve that problem. It contains comprehensive discussions of the history, validation research, as well as test technique, application and interpretation. In future court hearings on polygraph, this will be a tremendous aid in demonstrating validity and overcoming the historic judicial reluctance to admit the evidence.    That reluctance stems from three judicial concerns: l) the lack of demonstrable polygraph standards in test technique, 2) proven validity, and 3) the impact on the administration of justice if polygraph were admitted. These are legitimate concerns. Previous foundation hearings tended to show wildly variant expert opinions on such fundamental matters as question formulation, test technique and interpretation. The result was lengthy court hearings simply to allow a judge to rule on admission. Courts do not have the time to resolve such scientific disputes in the middle of a trial.    This volume should go far in alleviating concerns over the first two issues. Polygraph has progressed to the point that standardization of test technique is accepted by competent examiners. Indeed, the current advances in computerization would be impossible were there not accepted technique standards. Also, peer-reviewed validity studies abound in the journals of psychophysiologists to show that properly conducted exams will show high degrees of validity. As to the impact on the justice system, with the first two concerns largely met, the courts are now carefully crafting tight rules for admission to insure that valuable court time is not wasted in a confusing battle of experts.    For the attorney or judge, the chapter on the legal aspects of the polygraph (or psychophysiological veracity test, as the author calls it), contains a review of the recent cases and also a discussion of the factors which should be considered in selecting an examiner. The latter is crucial to meet the three judicial concerns noted above. Simply put, proper examiner selection - one who is properly trained at an accredited polygraph school and who uses the proper test technique - is the key to any hope for judicial acceptance.    Dr. Matte’s book is an invaluable resource and an enormous contribution to the field. --------------------- 1) E.g. "Polygraph 1984; Behind the Closed Door of Admissibility," 16 Univ. West Los Angeles L. Rev. 1 (1984); "Reliability of Polygraph Examination," 14 Am Jur Proof of Facts 1 (1977). --------------------- Charles M. Sevilla, Esquire Cleary & Sevilla, Attorneys at Law San Diego, California