Module: Lie Detection Techniques (3/1)

CHAPTER X
CHART MARKING WITH LEGAL AND JUDICIAL VALUE OF
THE POLYGRAPH RESULTS

At the end of this chapter the students should be able to learn:

 Familiarize in different chart marking used in the result;

 Compare the legal value of polygraph test in other tests used in

investigation.

Chart marking is the process of writing standard and customized signs on the
polygraph chart to denote the subject’s reactions and other circumstances that occur
during the actual polygraph test. Marking the paper chart while the polygraph pens are
writing on it will facilitate the evaluation and interpretation of the subject’s reactions.

Chart marking is a procedure that plays a vital role. Neglecting the appropriate chart
marking procedure for a couple of seconds may cause misinterpretations later on that
further result to tragic consequences. Simply failing to punctually write the stimulus
marks on the paper chart that will cause misinterpretation of the polygram.

Stimulus marks are short vertical lines (normally about 1/8 of an inch) placed below
the descending stroke of the cardio tracing denoting exactly the beginning and at the
end of the stimulus question.
 Module: Lie Detection Techniques (3/1)

Polygram refers to the compete record of the pneumograph, cardiograph and

galvanograph tracings from the moment the actual questioning of the subject starts
until it ends. It contains the tracings (norm and deviation from norm), stimulus marks
and symbols skillfully written by the polygraph examiner while asking questions to a
subject.

It was Cleve Backster who developed and introduced uniform chart marking. In
1959, he completed a 4-page article entitle “Uniform Chart Marking” which was
published by CH Stoelting Company. Standardized chart markings used by the PE/FP
in conducting a polygraph examination enable the reconstruction of the test conditions
for subsequent independent review and analysis.

The following chart markings are uniformly used by FP during polygraph

examination:

SYMBOL USE/ DESCRIPTION WHERE IT IS PLACED

X Beginning point of the test Below the c/tracing

XX Ending point of the test -do
I (Stimulus mark) beginning and -do
ending point of a stimulus
question

+ indicates YES or affirmative -do

answer of the subject

--- indicates NO or negative answer -do

of the subject

T-T Talking made by the subject -do

other than the normal “Yes or
No”
 Module: Lie Detection Techniques (3/1)

TI Talking instruction is given by the -do

PE
C Coughing made by the subject Below p/tracing where break is
present

M Movement of the subject limb or Exactly above/ below break in the

body tracing

MI Movement instruction given by Below the c/tracing

the PE

Increasing mechanical Adjacent to pattern where

adjustment adjustment is made

Decreasing mechanical -do

adjustment

CT Subject cleared his throat Usually placed below the

p/tracing

OSN Outside noise penetrated the Below g or p/tracing where

polygraph examination room deviation is present

S The subject made a sigh At the break point of p/tracing

SN The subject sniffed Below the p/tracing where sniff
was noted

SZ The subject sneezed Below p/tracing at the point where

it happened

B The subject burped or belched Below the p/tracing where it

coccured

L The subject laughed Below break point of p/tracing

Y The subject made a yawn Below pneumo tracing
VC Voice change while answering At the break point of the cardio
question tracing

IM The subject made an involuntary -do

movement
 Module: Lie Detection Techniques (3/1)

ARM Movement of arm due to Below the cardio tracing

extraneous factors usually
caused by BPC discomfort

BI The examiner gave a breathing Below the cardio tracing

instruction

R The subject requested for Below the cardio tracing

repetition of question

PJ Paper jam occurred during the Below the cardio tracing

test

Other markings written on the paper chart which are necessary for identification and
filing purposes. Take note that after the actual test, the subject is required to put his
signature along the 3 (or 4) tracings on the Polygram for purposes of positive
identification (ID). Specifically, the markings are written above the pneumo tracing
near the beginning of the paper chart, are the following:

1. Subject’s name and position of rank

2. date and time of the actual test

3. Test / Chart number

4. Examiner’s name of initials

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL VALUE OF THE POLYGRAPH RESULTS

IN GENERAL

Although perfection in the test is not a pre-requisite to the admissibility of evidence

obtainable by the use of scientific instrument or techniques, the standard practice has
been to grant judicial recognition only after the proponents of the unprecedented
evidence have shown that the instrument of technique has a reasonable measure of
 Module: Lie Detection Techniques (3/1)

precision in its indications, and that it is an accepted one in particular profession or

field of science to which it belongs. A more modern view will accord judicial recognition
upon the general acceptance by specialist within a profession or field of science, even
though the group as a whole may be completely unfamiliar with the instrument or
technique.

Irrespective of the guidelines of admissibility, the prevailing judicial attitude, as

of January 1977, was one of a general unwillingness on the part of the Appellate
Courts to approve the admissibility of Polygraph Test Result as trial court evidence.
Exceptions however, have been made by a number of State Appellate Courts whereby
the test results may be used pursuant to a pre-test agreement and stipulation between
the opposing parties. Moreover, One State Supreme Court has held the results to be
admissible where subject to certain condition, the defendant request a polygraph
examination and agrees to permit the results to be used even though they may be
unfavorable to him; an another
Supreme Court has held that a defendant is entitled, as a matter of constitutional “Due
Process”, to have the test results admitted as evidence, provided proof is forthcoming
as to test reliability and the examiner competency.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA)

In 1972, in the case of Reid vs. State, the Indiana Supreme Court sustained the
admissibility of Polygraph Test Results for the purpose of rebutting the defendant’s
testimony, but it did so upon the basis of a “waiver” concept, because the defendant’s
testimony had filed a pre-trial petition for an order permitting him to submit to a
polygraph examination. Judge Charles W. Jeiner of the District Court of Michigan
admits or sustained the admissibility of the Polygraph Results as evidence in the case
on the “United States vs. Ridling”. He also stated that in order that the Polygraph
Results may be admitted as an evidence, it must passed thereof the two essential
requisites/grounds; a. if a subject agrees to take a Polygraph Test after being aware
 Module: Lie Detection Techniques (3/1)

of his privilege to refuse (following the Miranda warnings, where required), he waives
his privilege. B. There can be no coercion at the time the Test is taken if it is to be a
valid test.

In USA, they have specific laws that provide sanctions regarding the use of polygraph
method. The most significant law is the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA)
of 1988. This law prohibits most private employers from using polygraph testing to
screen applicants for employment. It does not however affect public employees such
as police agencies or other governmental institutions.

Every court jurisdiction in USA must be checked to determine admissibility standards

of polygraph examination result. Some courts allow the introduction of polygraph
evidence while other courts have not. In most cases, polygraph evidence is used
during pre-trial investigation and preparations rather than during the actual trial.

In criminal cases, the history regarding the use of polygraph goes way back in 1932
during the investigation of the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case.

At the US Federal level, there have been specific legal cases that have shaped
the admissibility of results of polygraph examination. The results of these cases are
mixed- there have been some federal circuits that have admitted polygraph results,
while others have flatly denied them. Here are just a few of the legal cases that have
shaped how polygraphs are viewed by the US Courts:

1. Frye v. United States (1923)

2. United Sates v. Piccinona (1989)

3. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993)

4. United States v. Scheffer (1998)

 Module: Lie Detection Techniques (3/1)

Few representative cases involving admissibility of polygraph examination result in

USA are listed below distributed in some states:

1. Arizona - State v. Mendez

2. California - People v. Espinoza

3. Delaware - Foraker v. State

4. Hawaii - State v. Okumura

5. Indiana - Sanchez v. State

6. Kansas - State v. Wakefield

7. North Carolina - State v. Fleming

8. Ohio - State v. Hesson

9. Texas - Perkins v. State 10. Federal Courts:- US v Pasado

- US v. Thomas

- US v. Piccinonna

- US v. Galbreth

PHILIPPINES

In the Philippines, no law has been enacted yet to officially permit or limit the use of
polygraph machines. Nor is there any proposed bill regarding polygraph examination
that is already filed at the congress, Hopefully, a law similar to EPPA of 1988 of USA
will proposed here in our country for the future.

In the Philippines, in People of the Philippines Vs. Amado Daniel alias “Amado
Ato” accused-appellant (86 SCRA 511-541), the Supreme Court quoted that; “The
efficacy of the Polygraph depends upon the time, place and the circumstances when
taken and the nature of the Subject”.
 Module: Lie Detection Techniques (3/1)

Other criminal cases in the Philippines that involve the use of polygraph
examination results are the following:

1. People of the Philippines vs. Amado Daniel alias Amado Ato

(Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA). Vol 86, pp. 511-541. (Rape)

2. People of the Philippines vs. Danilo J. Bajas (Criminal Case No. 92-
7817 at the RTC of Makati Branch 146 MM). (Illegal Possession of Firearm).
3. Judith Asilo vs. Melanio M. Sporas; Virginia L. Sporas and Elena
Falzon.

(Criminal Case No. 94-6985 at the RTC of Makati Branch 146 MM) (Estafa)

Civil cases involving results of polygraph examination are included in the following
civil cases:

1. Crisencia Isaguirre vs. Elvira Isaguirre, et. al. (Civil case No. 58092
filed in the RTC of Pasig Branch 162 MM)

2. Jesusa Reyes and Conrado B. Reyes vs. Bank of the Philippine

Islands (BPI). (Criminal case No. 91-3453 in the RTC of Pasig Branch 142 MM)

As of this time, results of polygraph examination are not admissible in the Philippine
Courts. There are three (3) basic arguments/ reasons why at this stage result of
polygraph examination is not yet admissible as evidence:

1. Polygraph examination is not yet standardized as to the qualifications of

the polygraph examiner.
2. Polygraph examination is not yet standardized as to testing procedure.

3. Polygraph is not yet standardized as to instrumentation.

 Module: Lie Detection Techniques (3/1)

Asides from this case, there are several cases I our country both civil and criminal
cases where the results of the Polygraph Test were taken into accounts or
considerations.

The Basic law that provides legal sanctions covering criminal confessin is found in the
1987 Constitutional provision was further emphasized in other subsequent sections.
RA No. 7438, otherwise known as the law that defines the rights of the accuse under
custodial investigation must have to be observed during criminal interrogation as part
f the Miranda Doctrine/Warning.

TOPICS VIDEO LINKS

Are Lie Detector Tests Admissible In Court? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1teAPJNhFNU

Concept of Lie Detection Techniques https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qiLg1mlx5U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2BLBvYlx24
Using a Polygraph
Examination (Lie Detector) in
Criminal Defense

References:
King-eo, Chester (2006). Introduction to Specific Lie Detection. Unpublished notes
from the University of the Cordilleras: Baguio City
http://www.truthverifier.com.html http://wwwpolytest.org/polyfaq.htm
Module: Lie Detection Techniques (3/1)