Peculiarities of a Polygraph Examiner’s Report in a Criminal Case in Russia and the United States
https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0525.2022.3.21.544-563
Abstract
From a legal standpoint, the pr ocess of investigating crimes and the order of proceedings in a criminal case differ in different countries. However, there are points of convergence where the differences in legal systems are not so important. In the modern world, Latin proverb Jura novit curia postulates that judges cannot and should not have knowledge from other sciences. Therefore, lawyers of all countries use the help of persons with special (non-legal) knowledge. In Russia, only an investigator or a judge can appoint an expert examination to obtain an expert opinion. An accused and defense attorneys (mostly professional lawyers) can get an expert opinion. The procedural statuses of a specialist and an expert under the Russian procedural law do not coincide. However, the reports they provide are formally equivalent and they both can be used as evidence in a legal case. Having no special knowledge, the judge evaluates the conclusions made by the specialist and the expert. The judge can regard one conclusion as a proof, can accept or reject them. The specialist and the expert are obliged to make conclusions based on the results of the study within their competence. Polygraph examiners in the United States and Russia address this issue in different ways due to different approaches to the development of theoretical and applied areas of scientific research.
About the Authors
Ya. V. Komissarova
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yaroslava V. Komissarova, Associate Professor of the Criminalistics Department in the Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), Editor-in-chief of the Federal science-practice journal “Forensics analyst” (Moscow, Russia), PhD, docent, Member of the British and European Association of Polygraph Examiners, Honorary member of the Eurasian Association of Polygraph Examiners
Moscow
N. K. Danilevich
Russian Federation
Nadia K. Danilevich, freelance expert, self-employed polygraph examiner
References
1. Baddeley, A., Eysenck, M.W., and Anderson, M.C., (2020). Memory. 3d ed. New York: Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429449642.
2. Baev, O.Ya., (1992). Tactics of investigative actions. Voronezh: VGU Publ.
3. Brewer, N., Weber, N., and Semmler, C.A., (2005). Eyewitnessidentification. In: Brewer, N. and Williams, K.D., editors. Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective. London: Guilford Publ. Pp. 177– 221.
4. Frolova, O.E., (2021). About the language of scientific research.Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), 21;(2), pp. 147–154. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2021.78.2.147-154.
5. Komissarova, Y.V. and Khamzin, S.R., (2018). Theoretical and Applied Problems of the Polygraph Use in Criminal Proceedings in Russia. Journal of Forensic Sciences & Criminal Investigation, 6(5), pp. 555700. https://doi.org/:10.19080/JFSCI.2018.06.555700005.
6. Komissarova, Ya.V. and Khamzin, S.R., (2016). Polygraph Abroad — Countries of the Former Soviet Union. APA Magazine, 49(5). Available at: http://www.polygraph.org/apa-magazine [Accessed 01.11.2016].
7. Komissarova, Ya.V., (2018). On Standard Methods of Forensic Psychophysiological Examination Using a Polygraph. Polygraph & Forensic Credibility Assessment: A Journal of Science and Field Practice, 47(2), pp. 135–141.
8. Komissarova, Ya.V., (2021). Diagnosis of the information state of the subject in the system of forensic recognition. In: Socio-economic development and quality of the legal environment: Collection of reports of the 8th Moscow Legal Forum: in 5 parts, part 4, pp. 174–175. Moscow: Publishing Center of Kutafin Moscow State Law University.
9. Krahpol, D.J. and Show, P.K., (2015). Fundamentals of Polygraph Practice. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
10. Kruchinina, N.V., (2003). Fundamentals of the forensic doctrine of verifying the reliability of criminally relevant information. Author’s Abstract. Moscow.
11. Loftus, E., (1979). Reactions to Blatantly Contradictory Information. Memory & Cognition, 7(5), pp. 367–374.
12. Handler, M., Nelson, R., Goodson, W., and Hicks, M., (2010). Empirical Scoring System: A Cross-cultural Replication and Extension Study of Manual Scoring and decision policies. Polygraph, 39(4), pp. 200–215.
13. Ovsyannikov, I.V., (2001). Category of probability in forensic examination and proving in criminal cases. Doctoral Dissertation. Moscow: Academy of Administration under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of RF. (In Russ.).
14. Pelenitsyn, A.B. and Soshnikov, A.P., (2021). Evidentiary polygraphology. In 4 vols. Moscow: TsPP Publishing House. (In Russ.).
15. Polstovalov, O.V. and Shagimuratova, Z.A., (2016). Application of the Polygraph as an Element of Criminalistic tactics of Incrimination. Russian Investigator, 2, pp. 9–23. (In Russ.).
16. Ross, D.R., Ceci, S.J., Dunning, D., and Toglia, M.P., (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), pp. 918–930. https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.79.6.918.
17. Schooler, J.W. and Engstler-Schooler, T.Y., (1990). VerbalOvershadowing of Visual Memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), pp. 36–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/00100285(90)90003-M.
18. Simons, D.J., Chabris, C.F., Schnur, T., and Levin, D.T.,(2002). Evidence for preserved Representations in Change Blindness. Consciousness and Cognition, 11(1), pp. 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2001.0533.
19. Vasilyeva, O.A., (2022). Organizational and tactical bases for verifying forensically significant information in the investigation of crimes. Cand. Sci. (Law) Thesis. Kaliningrad.
Review
For citations:
Komissarova Ya.V., Danilevich N.K. Peculiarities of a Polygraph Examiner’s Report in a Criminal Case in Russia and the United States. Kutafin Law Review. 2022;9(3):544-563. https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0525.2022.3.21.544-563
Views:
364
Email this article 
