1 THE COURT: Mr. Daniels?

2 MR. DANIELS: For the purpose of the record,

3 Your Honor, we'll call Dr. Honts briefly.


5 The witness herein, having been sworn to

6 testify the truth, testified as follows:



9 Q Please state your name and address.

10 A Yes, Charles Robert Honts, H­o­n­t­s. I live

11 at 2263 Spring Brook Court, Grand Forks, North Dakota.

12 Q Let me show you a copy or maybe I can just

13 ask opposing counsel.

14 MR. DANIELS: May we now offer Dr. Honts'

15 vitae, Exhibit U?

16 MS. HIGGINS: No objection.

17 MR. DANIELS: We would offer with no

18 objection Exhibit U, Your Honor.

19 (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit U

20 offered into evidence.)

21 THE COURT: It shall be admitted.

22 (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit U

23 admitted into evidence.)


25 Q Does your vitae substantially set forth your



1 professional qualifications and work history and

2 background?

3 A Yes, it does.

4 MR. DANIELS: Your Honor, unless there is an

5 objection to the qualifications of Dr. Honts, I would

6 just rely on the resume for the qualifications.

7 MS. HIGGINS: There is no objection, Your

8 Honor.

9 THE COURT: All right.


11 Q Dr. Honts, would it be fair to say that you

12 have been involved in polygraph research and

13 administration over the years?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Could you give us very briefly please a

16 summary of your history in that regard?

17 A Yes, I went to a polygraph school in 1976,

18 the Backster School of Lie Detection in San Diego,

19 California. And I practiced as a polygraph examiner in

20 private practice for several different employers between

21 1976 and 1980. I did mostly criminal forensic work

22 during that period of time and quite a large number of

23 tests.

24 In 1980 I decided that I would like to

25 further my education and was accepted into the graduate



1 program at Virginia Tech. I received a master's degree

2 there, master of science in experimental psychology in

3 1982. My research while I was at Virginia Tech was all

4 on lie detection.

5 I went from Virginia Tech in 1982 to the

6 University of Utah where I received my Ph.D. degree in

7 1986. I stayed on at the University of Utah for about

8 two years in a research associate professor position

9 doing research on lie detection, funded research.

10 Q Specifically on the application of underlying

11 autonomic nervous system scientific principles to the

12 forensic polygraph lie detection technique?

13 A Yes, that's correct.

14 Q Okay.

15 A I left the University of Utah in 1988 and

16 went to the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute

17 where I was ­­

18 Q Is that the same institute that Dr. Barland

19 is with?

20 A Yes, it is. I worked for Dr. Barland while I

21 was there as a research psychologist and I was a

22 research team leader. I was there a little over two

23 years and went into the University of North Dakota which

24 is where I still am. I'm now an associate professor.

25 Q So you started as assistant professor of



1 psychology?

2 A Yes, that is correct.

3 Q When were you promoted to associate

4 professor?

5 A I was promoted ­­ let's see, in 1984, I

6 believe. I would need to refer to be sure.

7 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honor, excuse me. I may

8 have missed this has Mr. Daniels offered Dr. Honts as an

9 expert in any field yet?

10 THE COURT: No, I don't think he has.

11 MR. DANIELS: I'll be glad to offer him as an

12 expert in psychophysiology and in particular the use of

13 psychophysiological principles in the autonomic nervous

14 system to the forensic polygraph technique.

15 MS. HIGGINS: The Government has no objection

16 to him being an expert in the field of psychophysiology.

17 And if the latter part of that means administering and

18 scoring and working with polygraph exams, we have no

19 objection to that either.

20 MR. DANIELS: It is not only administering

21 and scoring, it's doing the scientific research and

22 performing scientific opinions. He is a scientist and a

23 polygrapher.

24 MS. HIGGINS: We have no objection to him

25 being admitted an as expert in the field of



1 psychophysiology and as an expert in polygraph

2 administration.

3 MR. DANIELS: All right. That's all I'll be

4 asking about here.


6 Q You were promoted to associate professor?

7 A In 1993.

8 Q I know you have been waiting a couple of

9 days, but I am going to make this short. Let me just

10 run over the Daubert factors in summary and get to some

11 specific issues that have been raised in the testimony

12 here today. Are you familiar with these factors?

13 A Yes, I am.

14 Q You have actually written on the issue of

15 Daubert factors ­­

16 A Yes, I have.

17 Q ­­ in connection with the polygraph? Can you

18 tell us whether the scientific hypothesis underlying the

19 administration of forensic polygraph can be and whether

20 it has been tested?

21 A Yes, it can be tested and they have been

22 tested many times.

23 Q And has the theory or technique been

24 subjected to peer review and publication?

25 A Many, many times.



1 Q What is the known or potential rate of error?

2 A That's a very difficult question to answer

3 specifically. If we're concerned with the kind of test

4 that is run here, based upon the high quality laboratory

5 studies and the high quality field studies that are

6 available, my estimates would be very close to what Dr.

7 Raskin gave yesterday. I think within some small margin

8 of error that the test is 90 percent accurate with

9 innocent subjects and 95 percent or so accurate with

10 guilty subjects.

11 Q And that ranges within 5 percent of Dr.

12 Barland's estimates?

13 A Yes, it does.

14 Q Are there standards that exist to control the

15 technique?

16 A Yes, there are.

17 Q And does it have ­­ what is the degree, if

18 any, of the acceptance of the technique within the

19 relevant community?

20 A I think the acceptance in the relevant

21 community is quite high. I think it is shown both in

22 the Gallup study about ten years ago and from the study

23 that Susan Amato did under my supervision that any time

24 60 percent or so of professional scientific

25 organizations endorses that a technique is useful, I



1 think is very impressive.

2 Q That is the survey that's reported on Exhibit

3 L that has been introduced in evidence?

4 A Yes, it is.

5 Q There has been some testimony about the

6 concept of countermeasures. Could you briefly explain

7 to us what research you're aware of or have conducted on

8 the subject and whether countermeasures are effective in

9 defeating the polygraph test?

10 A Yes, that is a very large question. I have

11 done a number of studies personally addressing the

12 effects of countermeasures. Our primary interests there

13 was in the national security setting because the great

14 concern in the national security setting is that a

15 person who is hiding their involvement with a foreign

16 government is going to penetrate the national security

17 systems and cause our government damage. And so the

18 cost of a false negative outcome is extremely high.

19 And the model that we took in undertaking

20 this research is that those people, hostile intelligence

21 officers, have access to all the information that is

22 available about how polygraph tests work and how

23 physiological responses might be reduced. And we try to

24 model that in the laboratory and give people the

25 advantage of that training.



1 And if I can be brief, I will summarize that.

2 If people have high quality training and are given full

3 information, our studies and the studies vary but if you

4 average across them somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the

5 people we train can beat the test. The research also

6 indicates that simply reading about it, going in and

7 finding the information that is available in libraries,

8 there are a couple of sort of underground publications

9 about beating the polygraph, giving people that kind of

10 information is not sufficient. They need the specific

11 hands­on training that we have done to model what goes

12 on at the spot.

13 The other thing that we have found is that

14 when people take polygraph tests, they frequently try to

15 beat the test. And this has been referred to as naive

16 countermeasures. They are fairly frequent. In the one

17 study that we published it was about 60 percent. The

18 interesting thing we found and even though in some cases

19 they used the vary countermeasures that we found

20 effective in other research when people attempt this

21 spontaneously without our training, they are just simply

22 ineffective.

23 Not a single one of the spontaneous

24 countermeasures was able to defeat the probable lie

25 control question test. There is additional data on



1 that. In Steve Horowitz' dissertation which was done at

2 the University of Utah during that period of time I was

3 there as a research associate professor, I worked very

4 closely with Dr. Horowitz on that project.

5 And one of the questions we had was is the

6 directed lie more susceptible to countermeasures than

7 the probable lie because it is in some ways perhaps more

8 transparent. And so we tested that in Dr. Horowitz'

9 dissertation and what we found was that there was no

10 difference in the rate of spontaneous countermeasure

11 attempts in probable lie controls and directed lie

12 controls both of which he had in his study and again

13 that replicated our earlier work that the

14 countermeasures were not effective against either

15 technique. So none of those people were able to beat

16 the test.

17 Q Let me move from countermeasures to directed

18 lies since we've just talked about something that tied

19 the two of them together. Do you consider the directed

20 lie to be a valid control question technique that is

21 supported by the scientific data?

22 A Yes, I do.

23 Q Have there been studies on its efficacy?

24 A Yes, there have.

25 Q There was one other matter that has come up.



1 Are you aware of the studies on the impact on juries on

2 the use of polygraphs in court?

3 A Yes, I am.

4 Q Could you briefly describe the research on

5 that and what the results show?

6 A Well, there have been several ways that

7 people have approached that problem, and I have been

8 involved in some of that research myself and personally

9 conducted some of those studies. One approach is to set

10 up mock juries in sort of a laboratory kind of setting

11 and then present them with evidence.

12 Sometimes that is done in the form of

13 actually having a mock court. In other cases people

14 will read transcripts or watch videotapes. The results

15 are quite consistent and from those studies that people

16 are not overwhelmed by polygraph evidence. That is the

17 percentage of verdicts moves about five percent. And so

18 people are quite capable of rendering guilty verdicts,

19 for example, when a polygraph has been offered that

20 shows that the defendant was telling the truth and vice

21 versa.

22 Q Is there anything that indicates that they

23 don't use it as one piece of evidence among with the

24 other pieces of evidence?

25 A No, absolutely that is exactly what the



1 literature indicates. The other part is just to

2 interview jurors when that has been allowed by the Court

3 after they have ­­

4 Q In actual trials?

5 A Actual trials. And that is also consistent

6 and they are quite capable of ignoring the evidence that

7 is offered and using it as a piece rather than a some

8 sort of overwhelming thing that they can't ignore.

9 Q As you can tell I'm rushing you. Let me just

10 ask one final question to avoid my maybe asking a lot of

11 questions that need to be asked. Is there anything else

12 from what you have heard in the last day and a half that

13 you feel a burning desire to correct or to inform the

14 Court about or have we covered it?

15 A One omission that did occur to me as we have

16 talked about the literature on the directed lie, the one

17 peer reviewed published study that has been mentioned is

18 the Honts and Raskin field study. The Horowitz study

19 has also been subjected to peer review in that it was

20 submitted to the Society for Psychophysiological

21 Research for their program.

22 They have an annual meeting and things are

23 presented and those are also peer reviewed in that they

24 are sent out to other scientists and they do reject

25 papers. Not every paper that is submitted to



1 Psychophysiology is accepted. I have had papers

2 rejected. And that abstract is published in the journal

3 so a 250 word summary that has been subjected to peer

4 review and has been published so there are actually two

5 peer reviewed publications if you want to include that

6 published abstract.

7 Q On the countermeasures have you found that

8 you can look at a chart and determine whether or not

9 countermeasures have been used?

10 A No, you cannot.

11 Q What have you found to be the best way of

12 scoring a chart even given the possibility that

13 countermeasures in the abstract can be used by highly

14 trained individuals in particular cases?

15 A Let me put in a couple of elements there.

16 Our research in countermeasures has indicated that when

17 you just look at the charts and expert polygraph

18 examiners just look at the charts and they are forced to

19 make decisions about countermeasure use, they are no

20 better than chance. And the distressing part of that is

21 that they falsely accuse a lot of innocent people. And

22 the research indicates that an awful lot of that is

23 based upon misinterpretation of respiration and

24 breathing recordings. We often find that breathing

25 recordings are quite erratic. Deep breaths are not



1 unusual with innocent subjects.

2 What we found in terms of scoring the charts

3 is to go ahead and apply the standard numerical scores

4 or to use the computer analysis and score the charts and

5 essentially do not evaluate the possibility of

6 countermeasures. The other thing that we have found and

7 this is a very well­established finding now across all

8 of the studies that I have conducted except the first

9 one where we didn't have a computer when the first one

10 was conducted is that the computer analysis is much more

11 robust.

12 That is it is not as affected by

13 countermeasures. And the computer algorithms that come

14 with the system that Dr. Raskin used cut the

15 effectiveness of countermeasures about in half. So the

16 use of the computer analysis is a very good protection

17 against the bad effects of countermeasures.

18 MR. DANIELS: That's all I have, Your Honor.



21 Q Dr. Honts, just for the purpose of

22 clarifying, I believe you talked about the Amato survey?

23 A Yes.

24 Q And you said that when 60 percent of the

25 membership responds in this fashion that you think that



1 is highly significant?

2 A Yes.

3 Q Isn't it true that, in fact, it was 60

4 percent not of the whole society but 60 percent of the

5 136 people or so people who did respond?

6 A Yes, that's correct.

7 MS. HIGGINS: Your Honor, I have no other

8 questions. Oh, excuse me, I do.


10 Q You talked about the Horowitz study. That is

11 the other study you say has been published or at least

12 something about what Horowitz has done has been

13 published having to do with the directed lie?

14 A Yes.

15 Q That is not an exhibit in this hearing, is

16 it?

17 A The original dissertation is not. The study

18 is discussed in several things that are exhibits. It's

19 discussed in some detail in the Current Directions in

20 Psychological Science paper that I authored. And it is

21 also discussed in some of Dr. Raskin's review work.

22 Q How old is that study? Was that before or

23 after your study on the directed lie?

24 A It was after.

25 MS. HIGGINS: All right. Thank you.



1 MR. DANIELS: No redirect, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: You may step down. Thank you for

3 your testimony.

Continue with this transcript.

Return to Polygraph Law Home Page.

This transcript was first available on this server on 12 April 1997.

End of document.