Lie detection in litigation: Science or prejudice?

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 88-104

  Andrewartha, Danielle ^a,b  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b NONE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 48049102981     PISSN: 13218719     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13218710701873940     Document Type: Review

References (309)

1. BM DePaulo, DA Kashy, SE Kirkendol, MM Wyer and JA Epstein, 'Lying in everyday life' (1996) 70 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 979;
2. DA Kashy and BM DePaulo, 'Who lies?' (1996) 70 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1037;
3. A Vrij, Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice (Wiley, Chichester, UK, 2000); J Campbell, The Liar's Table: A History of Falsehood (W.W. Norton & Company Ltd, New York, NY, 2001);
4. BM DePaulo, JJ Lindsay, BE Malone, L Muhlenbruck, K Chartlon and H Cooper, 'Cues to deception' (2003) 129 Psychological Bulletin 74.
5. CV Ford, Lies! Lies! Lies! The Psychology of Deceit (American Psychiatric Press Inc, Washington, DC, 1996); Vrij (n 1).
6. DePaulo et al. (1996) (n 1); Kashy and DePaulo (n 1).
7. Vrij (n 1).
8. A whole paper could be dedicated to the analysis of the euphemisms people use to reduce their feelings of impropriety and shame in engaging in behaviours that they would otherwise consider distasteful. The use of 'white', a colour historically associated with purity, chastity, and goodness, is a shining example of this phenomenon.
9. Campbell (n 1); DePaulo et al. (1996) (n 1); DePaulo et al. (2003) (n 1); Kashy and DePaulo (n 1); Vrij (n 1).
10. MG Frank, 'Assessing deception: Implications for the courtroom' (1996) 2 The Judicial Review 315.
11. For the purposes of this article, the terms 'liar' and 'deceiver' will be used interchangeably to denote a person who is attempting to lie to another, whether or not successful in that attempt. Those charged with the task of determining whether or not they are being lied to will be referred to as 'lie detectors' or merely 'detectors'. The liar's verbal and non-verbal efforts to deceive will be termed his/her 'presentation'. Although the author considers 'lying' and 'deception' to be two independent concepts, for the purposes of this article these terms and their derivatives will be used interchangeably.
12. Vrij (n 1) 6.
13. Vrij (n 1); DePaulo et al. (1996) (n 1).
14. Vrij (n 1); DePaulo et al. (1996) (n 1).
15. Vrij (n 1); DePaulo et al. (1996) (n 1).
16. Vrij (n 1); DePaulo et al. (1996) (n 1).
17. Vrij (n 1); DePaulo et al. (1996) (n 1).
18. Vrij (n 1).
19. E Lee, T Whalen, J Sakalauskas, G Baigent, C Bisesar, A McCarthy, G Reid and C Wotton, 'Suspect identification by facial features' (2004) 47(7) Ergonomics 719;
20. N Steblay, J Dysart, S Fulero and RC Lindsay, 'Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: a meta-analytic comparison' (2003) 27(5) Law and Human Behavior 523;
21. SM Kassin, VA Tubb, HM Hosch and A Memon, 'On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research. A new survey of the experts' (2002) 56(5) American Psychologist 405;
22. GL Wells and EA Olson, 'Eyewitness testimony' (2003) 54 Annual Review of Psychology 277.
23. I Freckelton, The Trial of the Expert (Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia, 1987).
24. E Loftus and J Doyle, Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal (Kluwer, New York, NY, 1987).
25. In statutory offences and the like where there is no victim this stage will be omitted or involve interviewing of relevant eyewitnesses.
26. Typically, after a less confrontational preinterrogation interview.
27. Similarly, criminal charges can be brought for attempts to mislead investigative officers at the pre-trial stage; for example, the charge of perverting the course of justice.
28. I Freckelton and H Selby, Expert Evidence (6 volume loose-leaf service Law Books, Sydney, Australia, 1993-);
29. I Freckelton and H Selby, Expert Evidence: Law, Practice, Procedure and Advocacy (4th edn Law Books, Sydney, Australia, 2008 (forthcoming)).
30. Broadly categorised into 'targeted cue identification' or a 'heuristic' approach.
31. DB Buller and JB Walther, 'Deception in established relationships: Application of schema theory', paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, February 1989, cited in JS Seiter, 'Honest or deceitful? A study of persons' mental models for judging veracity' (1997) 24(2) Human Communication Research 216.
32. My expression for what has been referred to as 'cognitive knowledge structures' (see Seiter (n 23), 219).
33. LC Miller and SJ Read, 'On the coherence of mental models of persons and relationships: A knowledge structure approach', in F Fincham and GJO Fletcher (eds) Cognition in Close Relationships (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1991);
34. see, also, for discussion of ways in which our scripts are contaminated, such as misinformation acquired via popular media, P McClellan, 'Who is telling the truth? Psychology, common sense and the law' (2006) 80 Australian Law Journal 655.
35. Miller and Read (n 25).
36. HJ Levinson, 'Forensic interviewing for deception' (1998) 35(7) Journal of the American Chiropractic Association 64;
37. J Ellard, 'A note on lying and its detection' (1996) 2 The Judicial Review 303; McClellan (n 25).
38. HD Bowman, 'The adversarial system - origin and practice in the United States with a comment on recent changes in Chinese criminal procedure' (2004) 12 China Business Review 43.
39. Bowman (n 28); S Kadri, The Trial: A History, from Socrates to O.J. Simpson (Random House, New York, NY, 2005);
40. Meehan v HM Advocate (1970) JC 11;
41. R v McKay [1967] NZLR 139.
42. National Labor Relations Board v Dinion Coil Co 201 F 2d 484 (1952) at [487-488] cited in McClellan (n 25); see also: Bowman (n 28).
43. BM DePaulo, M Zuckerman and R Rosenthal, 'Strategies of deception: Humans as lie detectors' (1980) Journal of Communication 129, 129.
44. Indeed, a police detective was quoted as stating, quite cynically, that '[y]ou can tell if a suspect is lying by whether he is moving his lips' (Richard A Leo (1996), cited in SM Kassin and GH Gudjonsson, True Crimes, False Confessions: Why do innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit? Scientific American Mind, 〈http://www.sciammind.com/print_version.cfm? articleID=000635C8-590A-128A-982D83414B 7F0000〉 accessed 26 March 2007).
45. JA Larson, Lying and its Detection: A Study of Deception and Deception Tests (Patterson Smith, Montclair, NJ, 1969);
46. see also the seminal quote from Freud: 'If his lips are silent, he chatters with his fingertips; betrayal oozes out of him at every pore' (S Freud, 'Fragment of an analysis of a case of hysteria' (1905) S.E. 1).
47. M Stone, 'Instant lie detection? Demeanour and credibility in criminal trials' (1991) Crim LR 821;
48. P Ekman, 'Deception, lying, and demeanor' in DF Halpern and AE Voiskounsky, States of Mind: American and Post-Soviet Perspectives on Contemporary Issues in Psychology (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1997) 93-105.
49. P Ekman and WV Friesen, 'Detecting deception from the body or face' (1974) 29(3) Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 288;
50. RS Feldman, 'Non-verbal disclosure of deception and interpersonal affect' (1976) 68 Journal of Educational Psychology 807;
51. BM DePaulo and R Rosenthal, 'Telling lies' (1979) 37 Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 1713.
52. RI Lanyon, 'Detecting deception: Current models and directions' (1997) 4(4) Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 377-387.
53. McClellan (n 25) 657; see also: J Hodgson, 'The scales of justice: Probability and proof in legal fact-finding' (1995) 69 Australian Law Journal 731;
54. J Hodgson, 'A lawyer looks at Bayes' Theorem' (2002) 76 Australian Law Journal 109;
55. J Douglas, 'How should Tribunals evaluate the evidence?', paper delivered at the 7th Annual Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Tribunal's Conference, Brisbane, 11 June 2004; A Ligertwood, Australian Evidence (4th edn Butterworths, Sydney, Australia, 2004).
56. Research demonstrates that, while laypeople are invariably poor at detecting untruths, they consistently believe they are quite accomplished at the task (see, for example: P Ekman, Telling Lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics and marriage (E Rutherford, NJ, 1986)).
57. Furthermore, although those in professions requiring greater ability to assess others' veracity accurately, such as police officers, they still cannot detect deception any better than laypersons (see: P Ekman and M O'Sullivan, 'Who can catch a liar?' (1991) 46(9) American Psychologist 913;
58. A Vrij and FW Winkel, 'Objective and subjective indicators of deception' (1993) 20 Issues in Criminology and Legal Psychology 51;
59. D Desforges and T Lee, 'Detecting deception is not as easy as it seems' (1995) 22(2) Teaching of Psychology 128;
60. A Vrij and GR Semin, 'Lie expert' beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception' (1996) 20 Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 65;
61. cf: M O'Sullivan, 'Unicorns or Tiger Woods: Are lie detection experts myths or rarities? A response to On Lie Detection "Wizards" by Bond and Uysal' (2007) 31(1) Law and Human Behavior 117, 120),
62. they have inflated confidence in their ability to do so (see: P Ekman, Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage (Norton, 2001);
63. BM DePaulo and RL Pfeiffer, 'On the job experience and skill at detecting deception' (1986) 16 Journal of Applied Social Psychology 249;
64. KHW Cheng and R Broadhurst, 'The detection of deception: The effects of first and second language on lie detection ability' (2005) 12(1) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 107.
65. Ekman and O'Sullivan (n 38); DePaulo et al. (2003) (n 1); M O'Sullivan and P Ekman, 'The wizards of deception detection' in PA Granhag and LA Stromwall (eds), The Deception Detection in Forensic Contexts (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004), 269-86.
66. RE Kraut, 'Humans as lie detectors: Some second thoughts' (1980) 30(4) Journal of Communication 209;
67. M Zuckerman, BM DePaulo and R Rosenthal, 'Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception' (1981) 14 Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1;
68. GR Miller, JE Bauchner, JE Hocking, NE Fontes, EP Kaminski and DR Brandt, '". . . and nothing but the truth": How well can observers detect deceptive testimony?' in NL Kerr and RM Bray (eds) The Psychology of the Courtroom (Academic Press, New York, NY, 1982), 145-79;
69. Ford (n 2); Vrij (n 1); Ekman (n 38); A Kapardis, Psychology and Law: A Critical Introduction (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003);
70. A Memon, A Vrij and R Bull, Psychology and Law: Truthfulness, Accuracy and Credibility (2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Chicester, UK, 2003).
71. However, there have been some interesting deviations from these findings. See, for example: GD Baskett and RO Freedle, 'Aspects of language pragmatics and the social perception of lying' (1974) 3 Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 117;
72. DePaulo et al. (n 31) (129-39); BM DePaulo, JI Stone and GD Lassiter, 'Deceiving and detecting deceit' in BR Schlenker (ed), The Self and Social Life (McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1985), 323-70;
73. N Ambady and R Rosenthal, 'Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis' (1992) 111 Psychological Bulletin 256;
74. BM DePaulo and J Tang, 'Social anxiety and social judgment: The example of detecting deception' (1994) 28 Journal of Research in Personality 142.
75. Vrij (n 1).
76. This is possibly the most commonly cited cue relied upon in detecting deceit (see: Vrij and Semin (n 38); see also: McClellan (n 25).
77. P Ekman and WV Friesen, 'Hand movements' (1972) 22 Journal of Communication 353;
78. RE Kraut, 'Verbal and non-verbal cues in the perception of lying' (1978) 4 Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 380.
79. Miller et al. (n 40); McClellan (n 25).
80. Ekman (n 38); Stone (n 34).
81. R Krauss, V Geller and G Olson, Modalities and Cues in the Detection of Deceptions (American Psychological Association, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 1976); Vrij (n 1);
82. SB Walters, Kinesic Interview and Interrogation (CRC Press, New York, NY, 1996).
83. Krauss et al. (n 46).
84. JK Burgoon, DB Buller, AS Ebesu and P Rockwell, 'Interpersonal deception V: Accuracy in deception detection' (1994) 61(4) Communication Monographs 303.
85. Kraut (n 43).
86. Kraut (n 43).
87. Kraut (n 43); McClellan (n 25).
88. Although, notably, the studies into the cues people rely upon to predict deception have been inconsistent and contradictory (see: Miller and Read (n 25); Seiter (n 23)).
89. JA Blumenthal, 'A wipe of the hands, a lick of the lips: The validity of demeanor evidence in assessing witness credibility' (1993) 72 Nebraska Law Review 1157;
90. JK Burgoon, DB Buller, LK Guerrero, W Afifi and C Feldman, 'Interpersonal deception: XII. Information management dimensions underlying types of deceptive messages' (1996) 63 Communication Monographs 52;
91. DePaulo et al. (1996) (n 1); P Rockwell, DB Buller and JK Burgoon, 'Measurement of deceptive voices: Comparing acoustic and perceptual data' (1997) 18 Applied Linguistics 471;
92. A Vrij, L Akehurst and PMorris, 'Individual differences in hand movements during deception' (1997) 21 Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 87.
93. Seiter (n 23).
94. For example, the impact of the adversarial setting, or nuances attributable to race or culture (McClellan (n 25)), or person specific, traits such as an anxiety disorder (see: Kassin and Gudjonsson (n 32)) or speech impediment (Coombe v Bessell (unreported, TasSC, 31 May 1994, per Zeeman J.), which cause the witness to behave in an unlike, unusual, novel, or unexpected manner (see, generally: McClellan (n 25)).
95. This has been referred to as 'fundamental attribution error' in the context of false confession and attribution research (see: L Ross, 'The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process' (1977) 10 Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 174;
96. see also: EE Jones, Interpersonal Perception (Macmillan, New York, NY, 1990);
97. LS Wrightsman, Psychology and the Legal System (2nd edn, Brooks/Cole Belmont, CA, 1991);
98. DT Gilbert and PS Malone, 'The correspondence bias' (1995) 117 Psychological Bulletin 21;
99. RP Conti, 'The psychology of false confessions' (1999) 2(1) The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology 14;
100. SM Kassin and GH Gudjonsson, 'The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues' (2004) 5(2) Psychological Science in the Public Interest 33.
101. See, for discussion of the 'halo effect', in which a pivotal 'good' or 'bad' aspect of the witness or his/her demeanour thereafter shadows the content of the message in its entirety: Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence (Interim), Report No. 26 (Australian Law Reform Commission, 1985, 〈http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/publist/reports.html〉); McClellan (n 25).
102. M Zuckerman, R Koestner and RE Driver, 'Beliefs about cues associated with deception' (1981) 6 Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 105;
103. M Zuckerman, R Koestner, MJ Colella and AO Alton, 'Anchoring in the detection of deception and leakage' (1984) 47 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 301;
104. M Zuckerman, SA Fischer, RW Osmun, BA Winkler and LR Wolfson, 'Anchoring in lie detection revisited' (1987) 11 Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 4;
105. cf: SJ Read, 'Constructing causal scenarios: A knowledge structure approach to causal reasoning' (1987) 52 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 288; Seiter (n 23).
106. Studies have shown very poor lie-detection rates within close interpersonal relationships, such as family and spousal situations, due to a tendency to accept untruths presented as truths. This phenomenon has been denoted the 'truth bias' (see generally: SA McCornack and MR Parks, 'Deception detection and relational development: The other side of trust' in ML McLaughin (ed), Communication Yearbook 9 (Sage, Beverley Hills, CA, 1986), 377-89;
107. JB Stiff, HJ Kim and CN Ramesh, 'Truth biases and aroused suspicion in relational deception' (1992) 19 Communication Research 326;
108. TR Levine, HS Park and SA McCornack, 'Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the "veracity effect"' (1999) 65 Communication Monographs 125).
109. C Fife-Schaw, 'The influence of witness appearance and demeanour on witness credibility: A theoretical framework' (1995) 35 Medicine, Science & the Law 107.
110. See, for example, discussion as to adverse inferences made when women give evidence in a stereotypically masculine manner: P Conley, WM O'Barr and EA Lind, 'The power of language: Presentational style in the courtroom' (1978) Duke Law Journal 1375.
111. J Giles, 'The assessment of reliability and credibility' (1996) 2 The Judicial Review 281, 292;
112. see also: J Harkins, Bridging Two Worlds: Aboriginal English and Cross-Cultural Understanding (University of Queensland Press, Queensland, Australia, 1994);
113. M Cooke, Indigenous Interpreting Issues for Courts (Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, 2002, 〈http://www.aija.org.au/ac01/ cooke.pdf〉 accessed 1 May 2007);
114. Lawlink NSW, Drug Court, Workshop No. 4: 'Are We Meeting the Needs of Women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and Offenders from Non-English Speaking Backgrounds?' (2002), 〈http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/ drugcrt%5Cdrugcrt.nsf/pages/confw4〉 accessed 1 May 2007; Stack v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 300 (per Murray J).
115. Lawlink NSW (n 62).
116. See for detailed treatment of these issues: SF Kiesling and CB Paulston, Intercultural Discourse and Communication: The Essential Readings (Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, 2004).
117. JW Rand, 'The demeanor gap: Race, lie detection, and the jury' (2000) 33 Connecticut Law Review 1.
118. See, for example: A Vrij, L Akehurst, S Soukara and R Bull, 'Detecting deceit via analyses of verbal and non-verbal behavior in children and adults' (2004) 30(1) Human Communication Research 8;
119. Ekman (n 38); Ekman and Friesen (n 43); MJ Cody, PJ Marston and M Foster, 'Deception: Paralinguistic and verbal leakage' in RN Bostrom and BH Westley (eds), Communication Yearbook 8 (Sage, Beverley Hills, CA, 1984);
120. JJ Furedy, C Davis and M Gurevich, 'Differentiation of deception as a psychological process: A psycho-physiological approach' (1988) 25 Psychophysiology 683;
121. JJ Furedy and G Ben-Shakhar, 'The roles of deception, intention to deceive, and motivation to avoid detection in the psycho-physiological detection of guilty knowledge' (1991) 28 Psychophysiology 163;
122. JK Burgoon, DB Buller and LK Guerrero, 'Interpersonal deception IX: Effects of social skill and non-verbal communication on deception success and detection accuracy' (1995) 14 Journal of Language and Social Psychology 289;
123. Ekman (n 34); BM DePaulo and SE Kirkendol, 'The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception' in JC Yuille (ed), Credibility Assessment (Kluwer, London, UK, 1989);
124. JK Burgoon and DB Buller, 'Interpersonal deception III: Effects of deceit on perceived communication and non-verbal behavior dynamics' (1994) 18 Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 155;
125. DB Buller and JK Burgoon, 'Interpersonal deception theory' (1996) 6 Communication Theory 203;
126. JK Burgoon, DB Buller, CH White, W Afifi and ALS Buslig, 'The role of conversation involvement in deceptive interpersonal interactions' (1999) 25 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 669; DePaulo et al. (2003) (n 1); DePaulo et al. (1996) (n 1).
127. See, for example: DePaulo and Rosenthal (n 35); DePaulo et al. (2003) (n 1); PF Ekman and WV Friesen, 'The repertoire of non-verbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding' (1969) 1 Semiotica 49;
128. BM DePaulo, GD Lassiter and JI Stone, 'Attentional determinants of success at detecting deception and truth' (1982) 8 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 273;
129. M Zuckerman, R Driver and R Koestner, 'Discrepancy as a cue to actual and perceived deception' (1982) 7 Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 95. See, for application of this model in the litigation context: Loftus and Doyle (n 18); Douglas (n 37).
130. See, for example: Kraut (n 40) Cody et al. (n 66); Ekman and O'Sullivan (n 38); CR Bartol and AM Bartol, Psychology and Law: Research and Application (2nd edn, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA, 1994); DePaulo and Rosenthal (n 35).
131. See, for example: P Ekman and WV Friesen 'Non-verbal leakage and clues to deception' (1969) 32 Psychiatry 88;
132. Ekman and O'Sullivan (n 38); A Vrij, H Evans, L Akehurst and S Mann, 'Rapid judgments in assessing verbal and non-verbal cues: Their potential for deception researchers and lie detection' (2004) 18 Applied Cognitive Psychology 283.
133. Ekman and Friesen (n 35); O'Sullivan and Ekman (n 39); O'Sullivan (n 38); P Ekman, M O'Sullivan and MG Frank, 'A few can catch a liar' (1999) 10(3) Psychological Science 263; Ekman and O'Sullivan (n 38).
134. Kraut (n 40).
135. See, for detailed overview: MD Happel, 'Neuroscience and the detection of deception' (2005) 22(5) Review of Policy Research 667; I
136. Freckelton, 'The closing of the coffin on forensic polygraph evidence in Australia' (2004) 11(2) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 359;
137. M McMahon, 'Polygraph testing for deception in Australia: Effective aid to crime investigation and adjudication?' (2003) 11(1) Journal of Law and Medicine 24;
138. Kapardis (n 40). See, for judicial commentary and treatment: Frye v United States 293 F 1013 (1923);
139. Mallard v The Queen (2003) 28 WAR 1; [2003] WASCA 296;
140. Phillion v The Queen (1977) 74 DLR (3d) 136;
141. R v Beland (1987) 36 CCC (3d) 481; R v Murray (1982) 7 A Crim R 48;
142. Reece P, 'The number one fear: Public speaking and the university student', 〈http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1999/reece.html〉 accessed 1 May 2007.
143. See, for discussion of guilty knowledge tests generally: DT Lykken, 'The GSR in the detection of guilt' (1959) 43 Journal of Applied Psychology 385;
144. DT Lykken, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector (McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1981);
145. JP Rosenfeld, VT Nasman, R Whalen, B Cantwell and L Mazzeri, 'Late vertex positivity as a guilty knowledge indicator: A new method of lie detection' (1987) 34(1-2) International Journal of Neuroscience 125;
146. L Farwell and E Donchin, 'The truth will out: Interrogative polygraphy ("lie detection") with event-related brain potentials' (1991) 28(5) Psychophysiology 531;
147. WG Iacono, 'The detection of deception' in JT Cacioppo, LG Tassinary and GG Bernston, Handbook of Psychophysiology (2nd edn Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2000), 772-93;
148. G Ben-Shakhar and E Elaad, 'The guilty knowledge test (GKT) as an application of psychophysiology: Future prospects and obstacles' in M Kleiner (ed), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 2002), 87-102;
149. G Ben-Shakhar, M Bar-Hillel and M Kremnitzer, 'Trial by polygraph: Reconsidering the use of the guilty knowledge technique in court' (2002) 26 Law and Human Behavior 527.
150. See, for discussion of the impact of countermeasures: GH Gudjonsson, The Psychology of Interrogations, Confessions and Testimony (John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1992).
151. See, for discussion of the limitations of suitable examinees: B Lane, Encyclopaedia of Forensic Science (Headline Book Publishing Inc., London, UK, 1992), 322,
152. cited in FE Inbau, Lie Detection and Criminal Interrogation (The Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, MD, 1942);
153. B Clarke, 'Trial by ordeal? Polygraph testing In Australia' (2000) 7(1) Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 〈http://www.murdoch. edu.au/elaw/issues/v7n1/clarke71nf.html〉 accessed 29 April 2007;
154. cf: S Porter and M Woodworth, '"I'm sorry I did it . . . but he started it": A comparison of the official and self-reported homicide descriptions of psychopaths and nonpsychopaths' (2007) 31(1) Law and Human Behavior 91;
155. DC Raskin and RD Hare, 'Psychopathy and detection of deception in a prison population' (1978) 15 Psychophysiology 126, in relation to psychopathic liars.
156. See, generally: L Farwell, 'Brain fingerprinting: Executive summary' (2003), 〈http://www.brainwavescience.com〉 accessed 1 May 2007;
157. L Farwell, 'Supplement to forensic science report: Brain Fingerprinting test on Terry Harrington' (2000), 〈http://www.brainwavescience.com〉 accessed 1 May 2007;
158. L Farwell, 'Farwell brain fingerprinting: A new paradigm in criminal investigations' (1999), 〈http://www.brainwavescience.com〉 accessed 1 May 2007;
159. L Farwell and S Smith, 'Using brain MERMER testing to detect knowledge despite efforts to conceal' (2001) 46(1) Journal of Forensic Science 135;
160. L Farwell, 'Forensic report: Brain fingerprinting test of James B Grinder' (1999), 〈http://www.brainwavescience.com/GrinderReport.htm〉 accessed 1 May 2007;
161. L Farwell and D Richardson, 'Detection of FBI agents using brain fingerprinting technology: A new paradigm for psychophysiological detection of concealed information' (2003), 〈http://www.brainwavescience.com/FBIstudy. php〉 accessed 1 May 2007.
162. See, for body of research supporting the theoretical basis of brainfingerprinting: J Allen, W Iacono and K Danielson, 'The identification of concealed memories using the event-related potential and implicit behavioural measures: A methodology for prediction in the face of individual differences' (1992) 29(5) Psychophysiology 504;
163. M Gazzaniga, R Ivry and G Mangun, Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind (WW Norton & Co, New York, NY, 1998);
164. JP Rosenfeld, 'Event-related potentials in detection of deception' in M Kleiner (ed), Handbook of Polygraphy (Academic Press, New York, NY, 2000);
165. Kapardis (n 40); T Egner and JH Gruzelier, 'EEG biofeedback of low beta band components: Frequency-specific effects on variables of attention and event-related brain potentials' (2004) 115 Clinical Neurophysiology 131;
166. SJ Luck, An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2005). See, for discussion of possible applications: Farwell and Smith (n 73).
167. See, for comparison to polygraphy, particularly in relation to countermeasures: L Farwell, 'The scope of the science of brain fingerprinting testing: Scientific data and its relationship to findings of fact and law' (2003), 〈http://www.brainwavescience.com/scopeandscienceofBF.php〉 accessed 1 May 2007.
168. See, for commentary, criticism, and suggested further research generally: TW Burke, 'Brain "fingerprinting": Latest tool for law enforcement' (1999) 47(6) Law & Order 28;
169. JMC Vandemia, Neural Mechanisms of Deception and Response Congruity to General Knowledge Information and Autobiographical Information in Visual Two-Stimulus Paradigms with Motor Response, Report No. DoDPI99-P-0010 (Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, Washington, DC, 2003);
170. JP Rosenfeld, M Soskins, G Bosh and A Ryan, 'Simple, effective countermeasures to P300-based tests of detection of concealed information' (2004) 41(2) Psychophysiology 205;
171. JP Rosenfeld, '"Brain fingerprinting": A critical analysis' (2005) 4(1) The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice 20;
172. J Wood, 'Forensic sciences from the judicial perspective' (2003) 23 Australian Bar Review 4.
173. See, for caution over Farwell's research: K Dickson and M McMahon, 'Will the law come running? The potential role of "brain fingerprinting" in crime investigation and adjudication in Australia' (2005) 13 Journal of Law and Medicine 204.
174. See also, in relation to the 'Rosenthal Effect': Lee v Loudes Martinez NMSC 27 (2004); 96 P3d 291; 2004 NM LEXIS 378 (2003).
175. See further, for discussion of comparable examples warranting caution: I Freckelton, 'Of blood, babies and bathwater' (1992) 17(1) Alternative Law Journal 10.
176. See, for discussion: JS Annon, 'Detection of deception and search for truth: A proposed model with particular reference to the witness, the victim, and the defendant' (1988) 1 Forensic Reports 303;
177. Bartol and Bartol (n 68); R v Gilmore [1977] 2 NSWLR 935;
178. US v Baller 519 F 2d 463 (1975).
179. See, for discussion: S Spence, T Farrow, A Herford, I Wilkinson, Y Zheng and P Woodruff, 'Behavioural and functional anatomical correlates of deception in humans' (2001) 12 NeuroReport 2849;
180. D Langleben, L Schroeder, J Maldjian, R Gur, R McDonald, J Ragland, C O'Brien and A Childress, 'Brain activity during simulated deception: An event-related functional magnetic resonance study' (2002) 15 Neuroimage 727;
181. T Lee, HL Liu, C Chan, S Mahankali, CM Feng, J Hou, P Fox and JH Gao, 'Lie detection by functional magnetic resonance imaging' (2002) 15 Human Brain Mapping 157;
182. G Ganis, S Kosslyn, S Sotse, W Thompson and D Yurgelun-Todd, 'Neural correlates of different types of deception: An fMRI investigation' (2003) 13 Cerebral Cortex 830;
183. SA Huettel, AW Song and G McCarthy, Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, 2004);
184. S Spence, MD Hunter, T Farrow, RD Green, DH Leung, CJ Hughes and V Ganesan, 'A cognitive neurobiological account of deception: Evidence from functional neuroimaging' (2004) 359 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1755.
185. See, for discussion of these lie detection techniques generally: Catalyst: To Catch a Liar - ABC TV Science (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2006);
186. DP Dionisio, E Granholm, WA Hillix and WF Perrine, 'Differentiation of deception using pupillary responses as an index of cognitive processing' (2001) 38 Psychophysiology 205;
187. BC Goldwater, 'Psychological significance of pupillary movements' (1972) 77 Psychological Bulletin 340;
188. J Beatty, 'Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources' (1982) 91 Psychological Bulletin 276; DePaulo et al. (1996) (n 1). See for discussion of the theoretical basis, which posits that the physiological responses observed during lying are a product of 'differential mental load', or increased cognitive processing: Buller and Burgoon (n 66), in which it has also been argued that detecting deception is a taxing cognitive process; see also: Cheng and Broadhurst (n 38); Ekman and Friesen (n 43); Zuckerman et al. (n 40); Cody et al. (n 66); Furedy et al. (n 66); Furedy and Ben-Shakhar (n 66); Burgoon et al. (n 66); Buller and Burgoon (n 66); Ekman (n 34); Vrij et al. (n 53);
189. JJ Walczyk, JP Schwartz, R Clifton, B Adams, M Wei and P Zha, 'Lying person-to-person about life events: A cognitive framework for lie detection" (2005) 58(1) Personnel Psychology 141; Zuckerman et al. (n 40); Vrij et al. (n 66);
190. cf: SA McCornack, 'The generation of deceptive messages: Laying the groundwork for a viable theory of interpersonal deception' in JO Greene (ed), Message Production: Advances in Communication Theory (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1997), 91-126; DePaulo et al. (2003) (n 1).
191. Derived from the early work of Italian criminal researcher, Cesare Lombroso (C Lombroso, Crime: Its Causes and Remedies (William Heinemann, London, UK, 1911),
192. and as adapted by Marston (VM Marston, 'Systolic blood pressure changes in deception' (1917) 2 Journal of Experimental Psychology 143) and, subsequently, by Larson (Larson (n 33)).
193. See also: G Lombroso-Ferrero, Criminal Man: According to the Classification of Cesare Lombroso (Patterson Smith, Montclair, NJ, 1972).
194. See, for example: Spence et al. (n 75); Catalyst: To Catch a Liar - ABC TV (n 76); Huettel et al. (n 75); Happel (n 74).
195. For example, Iacono (n 74).
196. G Ben-Shakhar, 'Clinical judgement and decision-making in CQT-polygraphy: A comparison with other pseudoscientific applications in psychology' (1991) 26(3) Integrative Physiological and Behavior Science 232;
197. L Saxe, 'Science and the CQT polygraph: A theoretical critique' (1991) 26(3) Integrative Physiological and Behavior Science 223;
198. JJ Furedy, The North American polygraph and psychophysiology: Disinterested, uninterested, and interested perspectives' (1996) 21(2-3) International Journal of Psychophysiology 97.
199. DC Raskin and JA Podlesny, 'Truth and deception: A reply to Lykken' (1979) 86 Psychological Bulletin 54; Iacono (n 72);
200. CJ Patrick and WG Iacono, 'A comparison of field and laboratory polygraphs in the detection of deception' (1991) 28(6) Psychophysiology 632;
201. E Elaad, A Ginton and N Jungman, 'Detection measures in real-life criminal guilty knowledge tests' (1992) 77(5) Journal of Applied Psychology 757; Catalyst: To Catch a Liar - ABC TV (n 76); Huettel et al. (n 75); Happel (n 72);
202. United States v Scheffer, 523 US 303, 333 (per Stephens, J).
203. Farwell (1999) (n 73); L Farwell, 'Forensic science report: Brain fingerprinting test on Terry Harrington' (2000), 〈http://www. brainwavescience.com/HarringtonForensicReport.php〉 accessed 1 May 2007; Farwell (2000) (n 73); Farwell and Smith (n 73);
204. L Farwell, 'Brain fingerprinting testing ruled admissible in court' (2003), 〈http://www.brainwavescience.com/Ruled%20Admissable.php〉 accessed 1 May 2007; Farwell and Donchin (n 72).
205. See, for commentary casting doubt on such claims generally: Rosenfeld (n 73); and, specifically in relation to countermeasure interference: JP Rosenfeld, M Soskins, G Bosh and A Ryan, 'Simple effective countermeasures to P300-based tests of detection of concealed information' (2004) 41 Psychophysiology 205. See also: Lykken (n 72);
206. CR Honts, RL Hodes and DC Raskin, 'Effects of physical countermeasures on the physiological detection of deception' (1985) 70 Journal of Applied Psychology 177;
207. CR Honts, MK Devitt, M Winbush and JC Kircher, 'Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of the concealed information test' (1996) 33 Psychophysiology 84;
208. CR Honts and SL Amato, 'Countermeasures' in M Kleiner (ed), Handbook of Polygraph Testing (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 2002), 251-64; Rosenfeld et al. (n 75).
209. National Research Council, The Polygraph and Lie Detection (National Acadamies Press, Washington, DC, 2003) 4.
210. Testimony of Professors Iacono and Furedy in Mallard v The Queen (2003) 28 WAR 1; [2003] WASCA 296, at 325 and 338.
211. McClellan (n 25) 657.
212. M Yant, Presumed Guilty: When Innocent People are Wrongly Convicted (Prometheus, Buffalo, NY, 1991); Kassin and Gudjonsson (n 58).
213. Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).
214. Kassin and Gudjonsson (n 58).
215. Stone (n 34) 826.
216. Krauss et al. (n 48).
217. ML Knapp and JA Hall, Non-verbal Communication in Human Interaction (3rd edn Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX, 1997).
218. D Simon, Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets (Ivy Books, New York, NY, 1991), 219.
219. Testimony of Professors Iacono and Furedy (n 87).
220. Attorney General (NSW) v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 318. See also: Dickson and McMahon (n 73); I
221. Freckelton and M McMahon, 'Social science research and experimentation in Australian criminal proceedings: Prejudicial pre-trial publicity and psychological research' (2002) 9 Journal of Law and Medicine 347; Dickson and McMahon (n 73).
222. National Research Council (n 86) 3. See also: Dionisio et al. (n 78).
223. Chamberlain v The Queen (1983) 153 CLR 521;
224. Joseph Crosfield & Sons Ltd v Techno-Chemical Laboratories Ltd (Law Books, Sydney, Australia, 1913) 29 TLR 378;
225. HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414.
226. See, for a comprehensive discussion: I Freckelton and H Selby, Expert Evidence: Law, Practice, Procedure and Advocacy (4th edn Thomson, 2008 (forthcoming)).
227. Joseph Crosfield & Sons Ltd v Techno-Chemical Laboratories Ltd (1913) 29 TLR 378.
228. See also: Chamberlain v The Queen (1983) 153 CLR 521;
229. HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414;
230. R v Palmer [1981] 1 NSWLR 209;
231. R v Tonkin [1975] Qd R 1.
232. Farrell v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1292;
233. Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486;
234. R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45.
235. Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486.
236. Evidence Act 1995 (Cth);
237. R v Noll [1999] VSCA 164;
238. R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45, per King J;
239. Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486;
240. Weal v Bottom (1966) 40 ALJR 436.
241. Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292;
242. R v Tran (1990) 50 A Crim R 233.
243. Evidence Act 1995 (Cth); Freckelton and Selby (n 100).
244. See generally for detailed history and discussion: SD Penrod, SM Fulero and BL Cutler, 'Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and after Daubert: The state of the law and the science' (1995) 13(2) Behavioral Sciences and the Law 229.
245. 509 US 579 (1993).
246. G Edmond and D Mercer, 'Keeping "junk" history, philosophy and sociology of science out of the courtroom: Problems with the reception of Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc' (1997) 20 University of New South Wales Law Journal 48.
247. 293 F 1013 (1923).
248. Now replaced by the Federal Rules of Evidence 2006 (US).
249. Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 (1923) 1014.
250. S Odgers and J Richardson, 'Keeping bad science out of the courtroom - Changes in American and Australian expert evidence law' (1995) 18(1) University of New South Wales Law Journal 108; Edmond and Mercer (n 109); Freckelton and Selby (n 100).
251. Voluntarily, as foreign law is not binding in Australian jurisdiction.
252. Edmond and Mercer (n 109); Freckelton and Selby (n 100).
253. Odgers and Richardson (n 113).
254. R v Gilmore [1977] 2 NSWLR 935;
255. R v Gallagher [2001] NSWSC 462;
256. R v Pantoja (1996) 88 A Crim R 554.
257. R v Lewis (1987) 29 A Crim R 267.
258. Carroll v The Queen (1985) 19 A Crim R 410.
259. Runjanjic v The Queen (1991) 56 SASR 114.
260. Freckelton and Selby (n 100).
261. J v The Queen (1994) 75 A Crim R 522.
262. Lie Detectors Act 1983 (NSW), s 5(2).
263. Lie Detectors Act 1983 (NSW), s 6.
264. Mallard v The Queen (2003) 28 WAR 1; [2003] WASCA 296. See also, for discussion: McMahon (n 74);
265. G Broadbent, 'Polygraph evidence in Jamaica - the door left ajar' (1998) 62 Journal of Criminal Law 585;
266. I Freckelton, 'Polygraphy evidence: A temporary setback or closure?' (2004) 12 Journal of Law and Medicine 150; Freckelton and Selby (n 100).
267. United States v Hunter, 672 F.2d 815 (1982).
268. See for discussion of the independent states' powers to admit or deny polygraph evidence as they see fit: United States v Scheffer, (1998) (96-1133) 44 M. J. 442.
269. For example, New Mexico (see: State v Dorsey, 539 P.2ed 204 (1975)).
270. For example, Illinois (see: Illinois Rev Stats., ch. 38, 155-11).
271. For example, California (see: Wests Ann. Evidence Code 351.1).
272. Freckelton and Selby (n 100). See also, for critique of polygraphy techniques as evidentiary tools: Simon (n 93); R Leo, 'From coercion to deception' (1992) 18 Crime, Law & Social Change 35;
273. R Underwager and H Wakefield, 'False confessions and police deception' (1992) 10(3) American Journal of Forensic Psychology 163;
274. A Wood, 'Lying accepted investigative tool' in DS Connery (ed), Convicting the Innocent (Brookline Books, Cambridge, MA, 1995), 39-45; Kassin and Gudjonsson (n 56).
275. See also, for judicial discussion as to the reasons underlying the inadmissibility of polygraph examination evidence: Phillion v The Queen (1997) 74 DLR (3d) 136;
276. R v Beland (1987) 36 CCC (3d) 481;
277. th) 641 (Canada);
278. R v Murray (1982) 7 A Crim R 48;
279. Mallard v The Queen (2003) 28 WAR 1; [2003] WASCA 296 (Australia);
280. Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 (1923);
281. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 US 579 (1993) (United States); R v Bernal and Moore (unreported, Resident Magistrate's Criminal Appeal Nos 30 and 31/95;
282. judgement delivered on 26 January 1996); (1996) 1 Carib LB (2) 88, affirmed in: Bernal and Moore v R (unreported, Privy Council Appeal No 56 of 1996;
283. judgement delivered on 28 April 1997) (Jamaica); and, Lee v Martinez (unreported, New Mexico No CS2003-00026, Supreme Court No 27, 915, 24-25) (New Mexico).
284. Walther v O'Connell, 72 MISC.2d 316, 339 NYS 2d 386 (1972).
285. Clarke (n 72). See also: KN Bayley, 'R v Phillion: An intelligent Canadian decision on the admissibility of polygraph evidence?' (1979) 13 University of British Columbia Law Review 307. 133 Farwell (n 84).
286. However, note that the case was decided on constitutional grounds and therefore the Supreme Court was not required to consider the substantive brainfingerprinting evidence in drawing its conclusion. What is important is that it left open that possibility for future cases, by not interfering with the lower court's finding that such evidence is admissible for the expert scientific evidentiary purposes. See: Harrington v Iowa, S.Ct 122, 01-0653 (2003);
287. Harrington v Iowa, 659 NW 2d 509 (2002);
288. State v Harrington, 284 NW2d 244 (1979).
289. Harrington v Iowa, 659 NW 2d 509 (2002);
290. affirmed in: Harrington v Iowa, S.Ct 122, 01-0653 (2003).
291. Harrington v Iowa, 659 NW 2d 509 (2002);
292. affirmed in: Harrington v Iowa, S.Ct 122, 01-0653 (2003).
293. Mallard v The Queen (2003) 28 WAR 1; [2003] WASCA 296;
294. R v Murray (1982) 7 A Crim R 48.
295. N Leenaghan and O Guerrara, 'Call for brainfingerprinting' (2005) The Age, cited in Dickson and McMahon (n 75) 222.
296. McMahon (n 74); Broadbent (n 125); Freckelton (n 125). See also: J Edelman, 'Admissibility of polygraph (lie detector) examinations' (2005) 29 Criminal Law Journal 21. 140 Happel (n 72) 673.
297. Freckelton (n 123).
298. McMahon (n 72); Dickson and McMahon (n 73).
299. Edelman has commended the conditions espoused in United States v Crumby, 895 F Supp 1354 at 1357 and United States v Piccinonna, 885 F 2d 1529 (11 Circ 1989 en banc), with the suggested addition of following the American Polygraph Institute rules and adequate jury instruction, which together might serve this function (see: Edelman (n 138) (36)).
300. McClellan (n 25) 657. See also: Hodgson (1995) (n 37); Hodgson (2002) (n 37); Douglas (n 37); Ligertwood (n 37).
301. Farrell v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1292;
302. R v Ashcroft [1965] 1 Qd R 81;
303. R v B [1987] 1 NZLR 362;
304. R v Beland (1987) 36 CCC (3d) 481;
305. R v Toohey [1965] AC 595;
306. Thomas v The Queen [1972] NZLR 34;
307. R v Bernal and Moore (unreported, Resident Magistrate's Criminal Appeal Nos 30 and 31/95; judgement delivered on 26 January 1996); (1996) 1 Carib LB (2) 88, affirmed in: Bernal and Moore v R (unreported, Privy Council Appeal No 56 of 1996; judgement delivered on 28 April 1997). See also, for discussion of the limitations of this approach: Stone (n 34); McClellan (n 25).
308. National Research Council (n 84).
309. Clarke, (n 74) 5.