Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 59 PageID: Exhibit 33

Transcription

1 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 59 PageID: 3202 Exhibit 33

2 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 59 PageID: 3203 T CHARLES R. HONTS, PH. D. F April 29, 2012 Peter Neufeld, Attorney at Law Neufeld Scheck & Brustin, LLP 99 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY RE: Halsey v. Pfeiffer, et al. Dear Mr. Neufeld, This report is in response to a request from you on 12 January 2012 that I review and comment upon the polygraph examination that was conducted by Investigator Peter J. Brannon, Sr., of the Union County, New Jersey, Prosecutor s Office on your client Byron Halsey (hereinafter, the Halsey examination) on November 16, An invoice is attach that shows my rates and time invested in this matter. The materials provided to me (described below) indicate that this polygraph examination was conducted in the context of a homicide investigation into the deaths of Tina and Tyrone Urguhart. In the following sections I comment upon my qualifications and the materials that were provided to me for review. I then describe the standard professional methods for conducting and scoring a forensic polygraph examination in Finally, I provide my opinions and conclusions concerning the Halsey examination. My Qualifications: I am a Professor of Psychology at Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, Idaho In 1976 I was trained as a polygraph examiner at the Backster School of Lie Detection in San Diego, California. I practiced full time as a polygraph examiner between 1976 and 1980 when I went to graduate school to study Psychology. My polygraph practice continues to this day as a secondary professional pursuit to my career in Psychology. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Psychology with a concentration on human psychophysiology. My central area of study and research is in sub-discipline of Psychology known as Psychology and Law. Polygraph testing in particular has been a focus over the length of my academic career although I have also done research on jury behavior, eyewitness identification, eyewitness memory, assessing the credibility of child witnesses, interrogations and confessions. I have published a number of peer-reviewed scientific papers, book chapters, and training materials on the polygraph. Since 1982 I have offered basic instruction and continuing education in a number of venues in the polygraph profession. Those educational activities include lectures and instruction at the United States Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (now known as the National Center for Credibility Assessment), the United States Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Canadian Police College. On invitation, I have given continuing education lectures and instruction on the polygraph in many of the Untied States and in a number of other countries. Those other countries include Canada, China, Columbia, Israel, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. I have appeared as an expert witness on the polygraph and on my other research in a number of courts of law in the United States and elsewhere. Through my training, research, teaching, employment and consulting, I have become highly familiar with all the major techniques used in the polygraph profession, including the polygraph technique used by Investigator Brannon in this case SWEETWATER DRIVE BOISE, ID

3 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 3 of 59 PageID: 3204 Charles R. Honts, Ph D.: Review of the Halsey Polygraph Examination A true and correct current copy of my is provided with this report. My Curriculum Vitae accurately provides a list of my education, training, professional licensure, publications, presentations, employment history, and a history of my sworn appearances as an expert witness. Materials Provided For Review: The following materials were provided in two ZIP files that I downloaded from a hyperlink you provided to a cloud server: 1. Complaint 2. Brannon deposition 3. Brannon trial testimony 4. Brannon MTS testimony 5. Signed polygraph stipulation 6. Pretest subjects data 7. Polygraph attempt report 8. Polygraph questionnaires 9. Polygraph results report 10. Clarification statement 11. Polygraph charts part 1, pages 1-26 (three files) 12. Polygraph charts part 2, pages 1-33 (four files) 13. Polygraph charts part 3, pages 1-19 (two files) Concerning Polygraph Tests In General Polygraph examinations are used in the United Sates for a variety of purposes. The polygraph in question in this matter was used in a criminal trial. This type of polygraph test is referred to in the profession as a specific issue forensic polygraph test. In the United States nearly all the polygraph tests of this type are conducted with one of the variants of the polygraph tests known as comparison question tests (CQT). In the older polygraph literature the CQT was also known as the control question test. The following is a description of professional standard practice with the CQT in Current standard professional practice is substantially the same. A standard CQT polygraph examinations move through a series of structured phases that are common to all the validated versions of the test. Now and in 1985 it is recommended standard practice for all forensic polygraph examinations to be recorded (in audio at a minimum, but video is now preferred), although requirements for recording are much more common then they were in In this case, a second type of polygraph test, a concealed information tests (CIT, also known as a Guilty Knowledge Test) was also used. The CIT monitors the subject s physiology for recognition responses to a multiple choice questions about information from the crime scene that should be known by the perpetrator of the crime and the police, but not by innocent uninvolved suspects. PAGE 2

4 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 4 of 59 PageID: 3205 Charles R. Honts, Ph D.: Review of the Halsey Polygraph Examination Standard Methods for Comparison Question Test Polygraph Examinations in 1985 The first phase of a CQT polygraph examination is an introductory/general information phase where the examiner obtains informed consent to conduct the examination. The informed consent defines the nature and topic of the polygraph and specifies who will receive the results of the examination. The examiner then obtains some general information about the person to be examined. It is common to discuss the subject s health, education, and employment. The introductory/general information phase is brief and usually lasts 15 minutes or less. The second phase of a properly conducted CQT is the free narrative. In the free narrative phase the person being tested is asked to tell his or her story to the polygraph examiner. This is usually accomplished with an open ended question of the form, Tell me how it is that you have come here today for a polygraph examination? The free narrative is a non-confrontative information acquisition style interview. The polygraph examiner should work hard to not interrupt the person s narrative. Specific questions the examiner may have concerning details of the examinee s narrative are saved until the free narrative has ended. Because the length of the free narrative is under the control of the person being tested, its length is variable. In my personal experience, free narratives have lasted as little as 5 minutes while some continue for an hour or, in rare cases, much more. Complex crimes such as business frauds often take longer to describe and explain. Following the free narrative the examiner takes over and moves into the testing phase. The initial part of the testing phase includes a word for word discussion of the questions to be used in the test, a discussion of how the polygraph works and the polygraph sensors. The introduction of the test questions is a critical part of the examination as the examiner must present the two types of critical questions properly for the test to be valid. The presentation of the questions follows from the theory of the CQT, which is as follows: The CQT assesses a person s credibility by looking for a differential reaction between two types of critical questions. The first type of critical question is known as a relevant question. Relevant questions are direct accusatory questions that address the issue under investigation (e.g., Did you shoot John Doe?). Relevant questions are worded so they can be answered with an unambiguous Yes or No response. Terms that require interpretation are to be avoided in relevant questions and great care must be taken to define all relevant question terms unambiguously. The second type of critical question, the comparison questions (also know as control questions), are deliberately ambiguous questions concern general issues related to the type of crime under investigations (e.g., Before 1994, did you ever do anything that was dishonest, illegal or immoral?). Through the method of introduction and presentation the examiner rapidly elicits No responses to the comparison questions. It is assumed the subject of the examination is lying in their denial of the acts covered in the comparison questions. It is critical that the examiner present the comparison questions to the examinee in manner that establishes them as an important element in the examination and that the examiner elicits a denial with a minimum of discussion. During the subsequent physiological data collection, if the person taking the polygraph test produces larger physiological responses to the relevant questions than to the comparison questions the examiner concludes that the person is being deceptive about the issue under investigation. If the person taking the polygraph test produces larger physiological responses to the comparison questions than to the relevant questions, the examiner concludes that the subject was responding truthfully to the relevant questions and thus to the issue under investigation. PAGE 3

5 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 5 of 59 PageID: 3206 Charles R. Honts, Ph D.: Review of the Halsey Polygraph Examination The initial part of the testing phase should also include a demonstration test, also known as an acquaintance test or stimulation test. As part of the acquaintance test, the examiner describes and then places the sensors on the person being tested. Typically three physiological systems are measured, respiration, relative blood pressure, and the electrodermal response. There are two respiration sensors, one placed around the upper chest and a second placed over the abdomen. Relative blood pressure is measured from a pneumatic cuff placed on the upper arm. During data collection the blood pressure cuff is inflated to a pressure of between 50 and 70 mmhg. Electrodermal activity is recorded exogenously from two electrodes placed on the palmar surface of the hand, either on the finger or on the palm itself. The acquaintance test has the person lie and tell the truth about some trivial items, such as what number they picked from a series, while their physiological responses are monitored. The acquaintance test gives the examiner a chance to adjust the polygraph instrument to the individual subject s physiology, and it gives the subject a chance to experience and habituate to the novelty of having his or her physiology monitored while answering questions. In the later part of the testing phase the complete set of examination questions are asked of the subject a minimum of three times, and no more than five times, while his or her physiological responses are recorded. The acquaintance test and multiple presentations of the test questions are the only times during the examination that the person taking the test will have sensors placed on his or her person. After data from a minimum of three presentations of the questions are obtained, the data are scored. Scientific research has established that numerical scoring is the most accurate way to evaluate a CQT. All forms of the CQT can be subjected to numerical scoring. There were three major numerical scoring systems in use in the polygraph profession in 1985, the Utah System, the U. S. Federal System, and the Backster System. Scientific research funded by the Federal Government has since shown that the Utah System generally outperforming the Federal System by providing greater accuracy for both the actually innocent and the actually guilty 1. By1985 research 2 had shown that the Backster system of scoring was inferior to the Utah and the Federal systems in that it makes substantially more errors with the actually innocent. The primary bias against the actually innocent in the Backster system is found in the scoring system s instruction to compare relevant questions to the weaker of the available comparison questions. The Utah and the U. S. Federal Systems instruct the examiner to compare the relevant questions to the stronger of the available comparison questions. Psychological theory and all the available data support the use of the stronger of the comparison questions in evaluating the relevant questions. In the Utah system the examiner compares the physiological response to the relevant questions, in each of the systems measured, with the stronger comparison question response from those comparison questions located near the relevant question in time. Scores are assigned at each relevant question for each physiological system (the two respiration measures are scored as one) on a seven-position scale that 1 Honts, C. R., Amato, S., & Gordon, A. (2000). Validity of outside-issue questions in the control question test: Final report on grant no. N Submitted to the Office of Naval Research and the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. Applied Cognition Research Institute, Boise State University. DTIC# ADA Also see the recent report by the American Polygraph Association on validated polygraph techniques, recently published as, Gougler, M., Nelson, R., Handler, M., Krapohl, D., Shaw, P., & Bierman, L. (2011). Meta-analytic survey of criterion accuracy of validated polygraph techniques. Polygraph, 40, Weaver, R. S., (1980) The numerical evaluation of polygraph charts: Evolution and comparison of three major systems, Polygraph, 9, Honts, C. R., Hodes, R. L., & Raskin, D. C. (1985). Effects of physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, Honts, C. R. & Hodes, R. L. (1983). The detection of physical countermeasures. Polygraph. 12, PAGE 4

6 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 6 of 59 PageID: 3207 Charles R. Honts, Ph D.: Review of the Halsey Polygraph Examination ranges from -3 to +3. A score of 0 would indicate that there was no difference in the strength of the response between the relevant and comparison questions being compared. Negative scores indicate that the relevant question produced the larger response while positive scores indicated that the comparison question produced the larger response. The magnitude of the score indicate the size of the difference between the relevant and comparison questions. After all the relevant questions are scored, the scores are totaled for each relevant question and a total score for the examination is also calculated. In the Utah Scoring System, when evaluating an examination that addresses a single incident, as in the Halsey examination, only the total score is considered. A total numerical score of -6 or less indicates deception. A total numerical score of +6 or greater indicates truthfulness. Total numerical scores between -6 and +6 are considered inconclusive. Complete detail of the Utah Scoring System was most recently provided by Bell and his colleagues 3. The final phase of a CQT is known as the post-test phase. During the post-test phase the results of evaluation are provided to the person taking the test and discussed. In some settings, if the person taking the test has produced deceptive results, the polygraph examination may transition into an interrogation. The length of the post-test can thus be highly variable. Concealed Information Test Polygraph Examinations. The Concealed Information Test (CIT, also know as the guilty knowledge test) is another method for detecting deception. In contrast to CQT, the CIT does not attempt to directly assess the veracity of a person's statements concerning knowledge or involvement in a crime. Instead, this technique is used to determine if the subject is concealing knowledge of details of the crime that would be known only to a guilty person (and the police investigating the crime). The GKT consists of a series of multiple-choice questions, each of which addresses a different aspect of the crime. For example, if the subject is suspected of stealing a ring, a question on the test might be, "Regarding the type of ring that was stolen, do you know if it was: (1) a ruby ring, (2) a gold wedding ring, (3) a pearl ring, (4) a diamond ring, (5) a sapphire ring, (6) a silver and turquoise ring?" A guilty subject who knows the correct alternative is expected to show a relatively strong physiological reaction to that item. However, an innocent subject who has no specific knowledge is not expected to respond differentially to correct and incorrect alternatives. Typically, only electrodermal responses to the questions are scored, and reactions to the first alternative is a presentation series is not evaluated because the first item in a series typically produces a large orienting reaction that is independent of any specific knowledge that may be possessed by the subject. Scoring of the CIT is very simple and has been standardized in the scientific literature since first described in the scientific literature in The electrodermal response to the scorable items are measured and rank ordered. If the key item has the largest response it is given a score of 2. If the response to the key item is the second largest then it is given a score of 1, all other responses are given a score of zero. The standard scoring of a CIT uses the following rule for making decisions: If the total score across the questions less than (T/ 2) + 1, where T= the maximum possible total score, the subject was reported as not concealing information. If the total score was equal to, or greater than (T/2) + 1, 3 Bell, B. G., Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1999). The Utah numerical scoring system. Polygraph, 28, Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, , and Lykken, D. T. (1960) The validity of the guilty knowledge technique. The effects of faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, PAGE 5

7 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 7 of 59 PageID: 3208 Charles R. Honts, Ph D.: Review of the Halsey Polygraph Examination the subject was reported as concealing knowledge. Since responding by an actually innocent person should be at chance, the probability of making a false positive error is defined by the laws of probability. Thus, for one multiple-choice question with five scorable alternatives, the probability that the subject's strongest electrodermal response will occur by chance to the correct alternative is 1 in 5, or 20%. With several multiple-choice questions, the chance probability that a subject who has no concealed knowledge will consistently react most strongly to the correct alternatives is exceedingly small. Generally, 5 or more key items are required for a CIT to be considered valid, as that many items provides an extremely high level against false positive errors. However, there are data showing that CITs with fewer items remain useful in providing information about credibility. This is particularly true because regardless of the number of CIT items, it is still possible to provide calculable probabilities of false positive error. My Scoring of the Polygraph Examinations Comparison Question Test Series In this case, as is my standard practice in reviewing examinations conducted by other examiners, I evaluated the physiological data before reviewing the other materials. My review of the physiological data revealed that three polygraph test formats were employed. The first test was a standard CQT examination with two relevant and two comparison questions. That series of questions was only repeated two times. The second format was also a CQT format developed by Cleve Backster and known as the SKY (Suspicion, Knowledge, You). Investigator Brannon incorrectly names this technique an SKG. The SKY is a CQT with three relevant questions and two traditional comparison questions. The SKY also contains a suspicion question in the form, Do you suspect any one of committing (the crime under investigation?). In the Backster system, the suspicion question is considered a comparison question and is scored as such. It is not clear how Investigator Brannon used the suspicion question. In his report of the Halsey examination Investigator Brannon (UC003394) lists the suspicion question with the relevant questions. However, in SKY question series document (UC003387) the suspicion questions is designated with the label 31 C. That label groups it with the traditional comparison questions. I would also note that to my knowledge the SKY series and the functional role of the suspicion question in the SKY have never been validated in the scientific or the professional polygraph literature. The SKY series questions in the Halsey examination were asked only one time. There was also a CIT with one series of alternatives that was repeated twice. I was provided with three sets of scanned images of the physiological recordings from the Halsey examination. Some of the images were very of very poor quality, but between the three sets of images I was able to piece together the data from the examination. My initial examination of the.pdf versions of the physiological recordings revealed that the standard physiological measures were recorded and those recordings were of minimally acceptable quality under the polygraph profession's standards of It was also my opinion that the recordings were sufficient quality to be submitted to a numerical scoring analysis. I evaluated the two CQT series of physiological recordings with numerical scoring using the scoring system developed and scientifically validated at the University of Utah. The Utah Scoring System has consistently been shown by research to be the most accurate of the scorings systems currently available. There were two relevant questions in Series 1 of the Halsey examination. According to Investigator Brannon s report of the examination (UC 03394) and the question list from the examination (UC003389) the relevant questions in Series 1 were: PAGE 6

8 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 8 of 59 PageID: 3209 Charles R. Honts, Ph D.: Review of the Halsey Polygraph Examination 33 R. Did you kill Tyrone and Tina? Indicated Answer "No" 35 R. Regarding the death of Tyrone and Tina, are you the one who killed those children? Indicated Answer No My analysis of Series 1 of the examination produced a total score of 0. That score is inconclusive concerning the credibility of the responses to the relevant questions of Series 1. There were three relevant questions (see my discussion of the suspicion question above) in Series 2 of the Halsey examination. According to Investigator Brannon s report of the examination (UC 03394) and the question list from the examination (UC003387) the relevant questions in Series 2 were: 32 R. Do you know for sure who killed Tyrone and Tina? "No" 33 R. Did you kill Tyrone and Tina? Indicated Answer No 34 R. Did anyone else help you kill Tyrone and Tina? Indicated Answer No The Series 2 questions were repeated only once. In the Utah Scoring System, when evaluating an examination that addresses a single incident, as in Series 2 of the Halsey examination, only the total score is considered. A total numerical score of -6 or less indicates deception. A total numerical score of +6 or greater indicates truthfulness. Total numerical scores between -6 and +6 are considered inconclusive. My analysis of Series 2 of the Halsey examination produced a total score of -2. That score is inconclusive concerning the credibility of the responses to the relevant questions of Series 2. The SKY format is unique to the Backster system and it is described as being useful for determining the level of involvement of the individual. In the SKY relevant questions are evaluated separately. However, there are no published validity studies evaluating the validity of the SKY format. Nor to my knowledge are there any studies, published or unpublished addressing the validity or utility of the SKY in any way. Any credibility assessment based on a single SKY series, as investigator Brannon did in the Halsey Polygraph, is purely speculative and without any scientific foundation or support for its validity. The Comparison Questions: The examination question lists provide the comparison questions used in the Halsey examination. The comparison questions from the Halsey examination are reproduced here. The comparison questions from Series 1 (from UC003389) were: 46 C. Between the ages of 12 and 21 do you remember ever deliberately hurting someone you loved? Indicated Answer No 47 C. During the first 12 years of your life do you remember ever deliberately hurting someone you loved? Indicated Answer No The comparison questions from Series 2 (from UC003387) were: 46 C. Between the ages of 12 and 21 do you remember ever hurting someone you loved? Indicated Answer No 47 C. During the first 12 years of your life do you remember ever hurting someone you loved? Indicated Answer No PAGE 7

9 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 9 of 59 PageID: 3210 Charles R. Honts, Ph D.: Review of the Halsey Polygraph Examination The form of comparison question 47 C in both series is very unusual in that it is time limited to before the age of 12. Without a recording it is not possible to know how this question was presented to Mr. Halsey or how the examiner could have made this question appear to be relevant to the issues under investigation. In my opinion, most 24 year old male subjects in 1985 could have answered question 47 C with a No and held the belief that it was a truthful response. If that were the case, then 47 C would not have been an appropriate comparison question. In my opinion neither version of question 47 C met the professional or scientific standards of practice in Moreover, it is my opinion that since 47 C was probably answered with a truthful No, its use as a comparison question biased this examination against the innocent. Concealed Information Test The CIT consisted of a single key item concerning what garment was placed in the victims mouth. The preparatory statement for this CIT was: If you killed Tina, did you do any of the following? The question template was: Did you put <insert item> in her mouth? Items to be used the question: A. a wad of toilet paper B. a wad of paper towels C. a pair of underpants D. a night gown E. a slipper F. a sock G. a rag H. a stick The answer known to be correct by the police was item C, a pair of underpants. This item address a salient and highly memorable detail from the crime scene that must have involved direct personal action by the perpetrator. The highly salient nature of this time minimizes concerns about whether or not the actual perpetrator would remember the item, and minimizes concerns of a false negative error with this CIT. This sequence of items was repeated twice. During the second repetition the order of the items was reversed. The scientifically validated scoring method for a CIT is very simple and is described above in the section on the Concealed Information Test Polygraph Examination. I printed the CIT recording onto standard size paper and then measured (to the nearest mm) the electrodermal response amplitude to all items, PAGE 8

10 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 10 of 59 PageID: 3211 Charles R. Honts, Ph D.: Review of the Halsey Polygraph Examination except the first item in both series. The items were then rank ordered. During the first presentation of the items, the key item, C, was ranked as the 4 largest response among the 7 scored responses. The key item was thus assigned a score of 0. During the second presentation of the items, the key item as ranked as the third largest response of the 7 scored responses. The key item was thus assigned a score of 0 for the second presentation. To have been considered as having knowledge of what was placed in the victim s mouth Mr. Halsey would have to have scored 3 or 4 on this test. Mr. Halsey s score of 0 is the strongest possible score in the truthful direction. Investigator Brannon conclusion In the peak of tension test, Halsey reacted consistently to choice C in all parameters in each chart. is simply incorrect Opinions and Conclusions: 1. The physiological recordings were of minimally acceptable quality for an examination conducted in The relevant questions of the examination were proper in structure, content and form. The relevant questions conform to 1985 standards of practice within the polygraph profession. 3. The examination was not recorded. Without a recording it is impossible to evaluate whether or not the polygraph examiner did an adequate job of presenting the critical questions. Without a recording it is also impossible to determine if the examiner conducted the examination in a manner that appeared unbiased and professional. Scientific consensus in support of a requirement for recoding all polygraph examinations used for applied purposes goes back to the late 1970s. 4. One of the comparison questions in each of the comparison question series failed to me professional standards for the formulation of comparison questions. It seems likely to me that question 47 C in both Series 1 and Series 2 was a probable truth question. As such the use of 47 C in scoring would create a bias against an actually innocent subject. 5. In my opinion, the data obtained in Series 1 are inconclusive. Further, it is my opinion that no polygraph examiner who used a valid scoring technique in 1985 could score Series 1 and reach the conclusion that Mr. Halsey was being deceptive. 6. In my opinion, although data in Series 2 trend in the deceptive direction, the only defensible outcome is to conclude that Series 2 is also inconclusive. 7. I do not believe that any competent examiner using a validated scoring technique could have reasonably reached the conclusion that Mr. Halsey was deceptive. 8. In 1985 the standard within the polygraph profession was to collect physiological data from a minimum of three presentations of a question list. Neither Series 1 (2 presentations) nor Series 2 (1 presentation) met this minimal standard for data collection. 9. In summary concerning the CQT portion of the examination, it is my opinion that there were serious problems with the design and implementation of the Halsey polygraph examination. One of the two comparison questions was at best weak, and was likely inappropriate. The amount of obtained data was less than that required by professional standards. The data that were obtained are inconclusive about Mr. Halsey s credibility when he answered the relevant questions in both series. PAGE 9

11 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 11 of 59 PageID: 3212 Charles R. Honts, Ph D.: Review of the Halsey Polygraph Examination 10. Concering the CIT, it is my opinion that the CIT was formulated within the standards of practice of Only one key item was tested. That item was presented in a series with 7 scorable alternatives. This item was presented twice. The expected accuracy of such a test with an actually innocent individual has been calculated to be In my opinion the CIT series of questions produces UD3.lDbiguous results supporting Mr. Halsey's truthfulness when he denied knowledge of the crime scene. Methods for conducting and scoring the CIT were developed, validated, and published in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The CIT (aka GKT) was a well known and well established technique in The scoring methods for the CIT were widely distributed in 1985 in both the scientific and the professional polygraph literatures. 12. Mr. Halsey's score on the CIT was the strongest truthful score possible. 13. Investigator Brannon statement about Mr. Halsey responses in the CIT, "In the peak of tension test, Halsey reacted consistently to choice "C" in all par3.ideters in each chart." is silnply incorrect. 14. In summary, my evaluation of the entire Halsey polygraph examination indicates that Mr. Halsey did not fail either of the comparison question test series and that the CIT produced a strong truthful result. It is my opinion that rather than failing this polygraph examination Mr. Halsey actually passed the examination and produced a truthful result. The opinions stated in this report are held to a reasonable degree of scientific and professional certainty. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Sincerely yours, harles R. Honts, Ph. D. Professor of Psychology PAGE 10

12 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 12 of 59 PageID: 3213 Office Department of Psychology Boise State University 1910 University Drive Boise, ID Voice: USA FAX: Prepared: April 29, 2012 WWW: Education: Ph. D., Psychology (Emphasis Human Experimental), University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, Awarded, June M. S., Psychology (Emphasis Human Experimental), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Awarded, June B. S., Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Awarded, June Faculty Appointments: Professor of Psychology, 1995 to date Department Head 2000 to 2003 Full Member of the Graduate Faculty Boise State University, Boise, Idaho. Associate Professor of Psychology, Full Member of the Graduate Faculty 1990 to 1995 Promoted from Assistant Professor in 1993 (3rd year) University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. Adjunct Assistant Professor, Psychology Department, University of Utah, 1987 to 1995 Salt Lake City. Adjunct Professor, College of Graduate Studies and Continuing Education 1989 to 1990 Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama. Professional Service and Awards: President-Elect, President, Immediate Past-President, and Member of the Executive Committee of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Charter Member and Fellow (Elected 2006) of the Association for Psychological Science. 1

13 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 13 of 59 PageID: 3214 Professional Employment: Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho to Date Associate Professor of Psychology, Psychology Department, 1993 to 1995 University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. Assistant Professor of Psychology, Psychology Department, 1990 to 1993 University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. Research Psychologist - Research Team Leader (GS-14) 1988 to 1990 Department of Defense Polygraph Institute - Research Division Fort McClellan, Alabama. Research Assistant (4 years) / Associate (2 years) 1982 to 1988 Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City Projects: A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigations. Funded by the National Institute of Justice The Effects of Physical and Mental Countermeasures on the Physiological Detection of Deception. Funded by the Department of Psychology, University of Utah. Teaching Assistant, Department of Psychology 1981 to 1982 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Detection of Deception Examiner, Various Employers to 1980 Specialized Training: The Backster School of Lie Detection (Polygraph Examiner's Course) San Diego, California (September - October 1976). Workshop on the Assessment of Truthfulness of Alleged Victims of Sexual Offenders Through Statement Reality Analysis. Professor Udo Undeutsch, Instructor. Salt Lake City, Utah (March, 1985). Interdisciplinary Seminar on Interviewing and Assessing Credibility of Alleged Victims and Perpetrators in Sexual Abuse Cases. Scottsdale, Arizona (April, 1986). Contracting Officer's Representative Course. Army Logistics Management College, Fort Lee, Virginia (June 1988). Interview and Assessment Techniques in Child Sexual Abuse Cases. Seminar sponsored by University of Utah, Department of Psychology, and Division of Continuing Education. (May, 1991). 2

14 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 14 of 59 PageID: 3215 Post Conviction Sexual Offender Testing. Forty hour course conducted at the New England Polygraph Institute. Instruction provided by Raymond Nelson an American Polygraph Association Primary PSCOT Instructor. Course conducted June 28, 2010 through July 2, 2010, inclusive. Certificate dated, July 2, Thesis And Dissertation: Honts, C. R. (1982). The effects of simple physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception. Unpublished master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. Honts, C. R. (1986). Countermeasures and the physiological detection of deception: A psychophysiological analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1761B. (Order No. DA ) Professional Publications and Reports: 2012 Honts, C. R., Kassin, S., Craig, R., Forrest, K., McBride, S., & Anderson, A. (2012). Juvenile false confessions: More detectable than adult false confessions? Manuscript under revision. Honts, C. R. (2011). A new paradigm for the study of malintent. Manuscript under revision Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (2011). Research methods for psychophysiological deception detection. In Rosenfeld, B., & Penrod, S. D., (Eds.) Research Methods in Forensic Psychology, Hoboken, (pp ) NJ, USA: Wiley Handler, M., Nelson, R., Krapohl, D., Honts, C. (2010). An EDA primer for polygraph examiners. Polygraph, 39, Handler, M., Nelson, R., Krapohl, D., Honts, C. (2010). An EDA primer for polygraph examiners. The Police Polygraph Digest, January, A revision and republication of the article originally published in Polygraph Handler, M. D., Honts, C. R., Krapohl, D. J., Nelson, R., & Griffin, S. (2009). Integration of preemployment polygraph screening into the police selection process. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 24, (Published online 20 May 2009.) 3

15 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 15 of 59 PageID: 3216 Honts, C. R., (2009). Deception detection technology, in, Jamieson, A., & Moenssens, A., (Eds.) Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science. West Sussex, UK: Wiley. Honts, C. R., Hartwig, M., Kleinman, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2009). Credibility assessment at portals: Portals committee report. Final report of the Portals Committee to the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment / U. S. Defense Intelligence Agency. Honts, C. R., & Reavy, R., (2009). Effects of Comparison Question Type and Between Test Stimulation on the Validity of Comparison Question Test. Final Progress Report on Contract No. W911Nf , submitted to the Defense Academy of Credibility Assessment (DACA). Boise State University. Honts, C. R., & Schweinle, (2009). Information gain of psychophysiological detection of deception in forensic and screening settings. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 34, (Available online July 2009) Webb, A. K., Honts, C. R., Kircher, J. C., Bernhardt, P. C., and Cook, A., E. (2009). Effectiveness of pupil diameter in probable-lie comparison question tests for deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, , (Available online June 2009) Handler, M. D., & Honts, C. R. (2008). Psychophysiological mechanisms in deception detection: A theoretical overview. Polygraph 36, Handler, M. D., & Honts, C. R. (2008). You can run, but you can t hide: A critical look at the fight or flight response in psychophysiological detection of deception. European Polygraph, 2, Honts, C. R., (2008). Credibility assessment at portals. Report of the Credibility Assessment Research Summit Portal Committee, to the U. S. Department of Defense. Honts, C. R. (2008). Polygraph and polygraph techniques. In B. L. Cutler (Editor), Encyclopedia of psychology and law (Volume 2), (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2008). Scientific Status: The case for polygraph tests. In, D. L. Faigman, M. J. Saks, J. Sanders, and E. Cheng (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Volume 5): Edition. Thompson West: Eagan, Minnesota. Voas, B., Johnson, M., Turrisi, R., Taylor, D., Honts, C. R., & Nelson, L. (2008). Bringing alcohol on campus to raise money: Impact on student drinking and drinking problems. Addiction, 103, Honts, C. R. & Alloway, W. (2007). Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test. Legal And Criminological Psychology, 12, (Available online in 2006) 4

16 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 16 of 59 PageID: 3217 Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. (2007). Automation of a screening polygraph test increases accuracy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, (Available online in 2006) 2006 Honts, C. R. (2006). Recent theoretical and applied findings for autonomic psychophysiological deception detection. International Journal Of Psychophysiology 61, (Abstract) 2005 Honts, C. R. (2005). Rocky mountain psychological association: Report of the 75th annual meeting. American Psychologist, 60, Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2005). Scientific Status: The case for polygraph tests. In, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Volume 4): Forensics Edition. Thompson West: Eagan, Minnesota, ( ) Honts, C. R. (2004). The psychophysiological detection of deception, in P. Granhag and L. Strömwall (Eds.) Detection of deception in forensic contexts. London: Cambridge University Press Honts, C. R., Amato, S., & Gordon, A. (2004). Effects of outside issues on the Control Question Test. The Journal of General Psychology, 151, Thurber, S., Bonynge, E., & Honts, C. R. (2004). Barron's revised ego-strength scale as a measure of test taking style: Relationships with the validity scales of the MMPI-2. Counseling and Clinical Psychology Journal, 1, Honts, C. R. (2003). Participant perceptions support the rationale of the comparison questions test for the psychophysiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 40, S48. (Abstract) 2002 Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. (2002). Countermeasures, in M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing. London: Academic ( ). Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2002). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case for polygraph tests. In, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Volume 2). West: St. Paul Minnesota, ( ). Otter-Henderson, K., Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. L. (2002). Spontaneous countermeasures during polygraph examinations: An apparent exercise in futility. Polygraph, 31,

17 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 17 of 59 PageID: 3218 Raskin, D. C., & Honts, C. R. (2002). The comparison question test. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing. London: Academic (1-49). Thurber, S., Snow, M., & Honts, C. R. (2002). The Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale: Convergent validity and diagnostic discrimination. Assessment, 9, Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. (2001). Psychophysiological credibility assessment. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1, Honts, C. R., Amato, S. & Gordon, A. K. (2001). Effects of spontaneous countermeasures used against the comparison question test. Polygraph, 30, Honts, C. R. (2000). A brief note on the misleading and the inaccurate: A rejoinder to Matte (2000) with critical comments on Matte and Reuss (1999). Polygraph, 29, Honts, C. R., (2000). Comments on State v. Shively, 999 Pacific 2d, 952 (2000). Invited commentary. The Forensic Panel Letter, November, Available: Honts, C. R., (2000). Comments on State of Hawaii v. William K. Naone, 92 Haw Invited commentary. The Forensic Panel Letter Online, May, Available: Honts, C. R., Amato, S., & Gordon, A. (2000). Validity of outside-issue questions in the control question test: Final report on grant no. N Submitted to the Office of Naval Research and the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. Applied Cognition Research Institute, Boise State University. DTIC# ADA Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., Amato, S. L., Gordon, A., & Devitt, M. K. (2000). The hybrid directed lie test, the overemphasized comparison question, chimeras and other inventions: A rejoinder to Abrams (1999). Polygraph, 29, Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., Amato, S., & Kircher, J. C. (2000). The case for the admissibility of the results of polygraph examinations: In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony: Volume Pocket Part ( ) Bell, B. G., Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1999). The Utah numerical scoring system. Polygraph, 28, 1-9. Honts, C. R. (1999). The discussion of comparison questions between list repetitions (charts) is associated with increased test accuracy. 28, Polygraph, Honts, C. R. (1999). Flaws detected in polygraph study. The Forensic Panel Letter, 3(11), 1,5. 6

18 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 18 of 59 PageID: 3219 Honts, C. R., & Amato, S. L. (1999). The automated polygraph examination: Final report. Final report of U. S. Government Contract No MO. Applied Cognition Research Institute, Boise State University. Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., Amato, S., & Kircher, J. C. (1999). The case for the admissibility of the results of polygraph examinations: 1999 Pocket Part to Vol. 1 of D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony. (pp ). Tye, M. C., Amato, S. L., Honts, C. R., Devitt, M. K., & Peters, D. P. (1999). The willingness of children to lie and the assessment of credibility in an ecologically relevant laboratory setting. Applied Developmental Science, 3, Honts, C. R., & Gordon, A. (1998). A critical analysis of Matte's analysis of the directed lie. Polygraph, 27, Honts, C.R. (1998). Louder and longer: A review of the second edition of Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood. Polygraph, 27, Honts, C. R. (1998). Criterion development and validity of the control question test in field application. Polygraph, 27, Reprinted from: The Journal of General Psychology, 123, (1996) Devitt, M. K., Honts, C. R., & Vondergeest, L. (1997). Truth or just bias: The presentation of polygraph testing in introductory psychology text books. The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 1, Honts, C. R. (1997). Truth or bias: Psychology and the polygraph. The National Psychologist, 6, 15. Honts, C. R., & Peterson, C. F. (1997). Brief of the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists as Amicus Curiae. United States v. Scheffer, in the Supreme Court of the United States. Available from the author. Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (1997). A rejoinder to Iacono and Lykken. Chapter in, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp ). Horowitz, S. W., Kircher, J. C., Honts, C. R., & Raskin, D. C. (1997). The role of comparison questions in physiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 34, Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1997). The scientific status of research on polygraph techniques: The case for polygraph tests. Chapter in, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp ). 7

19 Case 2:09-cv DMC-MF Document Filed 10/19/12 Page 19 of 59 PageID: 3220 Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1997). A response to professors Iacono and Lykken Chapter in, D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.) Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp ) Amato-Henderson, S. L., Honts, C. R., & Plaud, J. J. (1996). Effects of misinformation on the Concealed Knowledge Test. Psychophysiology, 33, S18. [Abstract] Honts, C. R. (1996). Criterion development and validity of the control question test in field application. The Journal of General Psychology, 123, Honts, C. R., Devitt, M. K., Winbush, M., & Kircher, J. C. (1996). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of the concealed knowledge test. Psychophysiology, 33, Amato Henderson, S. L., & Honts, C. R. (1995). Horizontal gaze nystagmus test: The state of the science in North Dakota Law Review, 71, Honts, C. R., & Kircher, J. C. (1995). Legends of the concealed knowledge test: Lykken's distributional scoring system fails to detect countermeasures. Psychophysiology, 32, S41. (Abstract) Honts, C. R., Kircher, J. C., & Raskin, D. C. (1995). Polygrapher's dilemma or psychologist's chimaera: A reply to Furedy's logico-ethical considerations for psychophysiological practitioners and researchers. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 20, Honts, C. R. & Quick, B. D., (1995). The polygraph in 1995: Progress in science and the law. North Dakota Law Review, 71, Kircher, J. C., Raskin, D. C., Honts, C. R., & Horowitz, S. W. (1995). Lens model analysis of decision making by field polygraph examiners. Psychophysiology, 32, S45. (Abstract) 1994 Amato, S. L., & Honts, C. R. (1994). What do psychophysiologists think about polygraph tests? A survey of the membership of SPR. Psychophysiology, 31, S22. (Abstract). Burlingame, G., Kircher, J. C., & Honts, C. R. (1994). Analysis of variance versus bootstrap procedures for analyzing dependent observations in small group research. Journal of Small Group Research, 25, Honts, C. R. (1994). The psychophysiological detection of deception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3,