Opinion ID: 2623542
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of the Alberico Factors.

Text: {19} We first address whether the polygraph examination can be tested, and if so, whether it has been tested. Id.; see also Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593, 113 S.Ct. 2786. Scientific methodology today is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed, this methodology is what distinguishes science from other fields of human inquiry. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (quoting authority omitted). Applying this factor to polygraph examinations, the district court concluded: Polygraph test results and the conclusions derived from them are not based upon an overarching theory. To the extent it is merely argued that there is a hypothesis that the test reliably detects deception, that hypothesis has not been subjected to field research. The existing laboratory research, given the problems described [in the Findings of Fact], is woefully inadequate to support admissibility in court in real life contexts. In reviewing the district court's conclusion, we must determine whether a testable hypothesis has been generated for the control question polygraph, and if so, whether that hypothesis has in fact been tested. {20} The hypothesis of the polygraph examination was discussed thoroughly in the NAS Report, which notes that a well-supported theory can provide confidence the polygraph can be accurate when used in novel situations and with different examinees. NAS Report, supra, at 66. Also, a theory is essential to providing confidence the polygraph will work well despite efforts by examinees to beat the polygraph through the use of various countermeasures. Id. Finally, [a] solid theoretical and scientific base is also valuable for improving [the polygraph] test because it can identify the most serious threats to the test's validity and the kinds of experiments that need to be conducted to assess such threats. Id. at 69. {21} The NAS Report notes that [a]ccording to contemporary theories of polygraph questioning, individuals who are being deceptive or truthful in responding to relevant questions show different patterns of physiological response when their reactions to relevant and comparison questions are compared. Id. at 70. The specific theory of the control question technique is that an innocent person will show a greater physiological response to the control questions; but, a guilty person will react more strongly to the relevant questions. Id. The NAS Report states that in order to have a well-supported theory, it is ... necessary to identify the relevant psychological states and to understand how those states are linked to characteristics of the test questions intended to create the states and to the physiological responses the states are said to produce. Id. at 71-72. The current polygraph research, though, has focused almost exclusively on the applicability of the polygraph at the expense of developing the underlying science. Id. at 92. Specifically, [t]here has been no systematic effort to identify the best potential physiological indicators on theoretical grounds or to update theory on the basis of emerging knowledge in psychology or physiology. Id. {22} Petitioners agree there is no scientifically testable hypothesis explaining all the psychophysiological variables occurring in the control question polygraph. However, Petitioners argue such an overarching theory is not necessary for polygraph results to be deemed admissible under Rule 11-702. We agree. The State's primary witness admitted at the evidentiary hearing held below that people experience emotional turmoil when they are telling a lie, and these emotions can be detected by the polygraph machine. Also, despite its criticism of the current research on the polygraph, the NAS Report nonetheless concludes that [b]asic scientific knowledge of psychophysiology offers support for expecting polygraph testing to have some diagnostic value, at least among naïve examinees. Id. at 101. The NAS Report further concludes that [a]lthough the basic science indicates that polygraph testing has inherent limits regarding its potential accuracy, it is possible for a test with such limits to attain sufficient accuracy to be useful in practical situations. Id. at 102. {23} As we noted in Anderson, refutability is the key criterion when analyzing the scientific theory or hypothesis underlying expert testimony. 118 N.M. at 297, 881 P.2d at 42. Under the facts of that case, in which we examined the admissibility of certain DNA evidence under Rule 11-702, we stated: Defendants vociferously dispute the accuracy of the match results and the adequacy of the testing done, and in refutation have presented evidence about deficiencies in both the results and the testing of the results. Thus, it appears that by attempting to refute the FBI's theory and methods with evidence about deficiencies in both the results and the testing of the results, the defendants have conceded that the theory and methods can be tested. Id. (quoting United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 559 (6th Cir.1993)). The State's primary witness on the reliability of polygraphs testified there are numerous studies on polygraphs and their accuracy. By claiming that a number of those studies establish that polygraph examinations do not work, the State has implicitly conceded that the hypothesis underlying the control question polygraph can be tested. The State's concession is supported by the NAS Report, which states it is possible to do better field research than we have found in the literature and, over time, to use admittedly imperfect research designs, both experimental and observational, to advance knowledge and build methodological understanding, leading to better research design in the future. NAS Report, supra, at 116. {24} Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the control question polygraph examination can be tested. We believe the district court's apparent finding to the contrary is erroneous. As was stated in United States v. Galbreth, 908 F.Supp. 877, 891 (D.N.M.1995), [u]nlike an endeavor such as astrology, the scientific validity of which can never be empirically verified, it is possible to test [the control question] polygraph technique[ ]. We now turn to the published academic literature on the polygraph examination.
{25} The second factor we consider is whether the control question polygraph has been subjected to peer review and publication. Anderson, 118 N.M. at 291, 881 P.2d at 36. Peer review and publication is important because submission to the scrutiny of the scientific community is a component of `good science,' in part because it increases the likelihood that substantive flaws in methodology will be detected. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593, 113 S.Ct. 2786. Regarding this factor, the district court concluded that the control question polygraph has been subjected to limited peer review publication, but that the relevant publications do not enhance confidence in the test results, particularly considering the effectiveness of counter-measures. {26} The committee that prepared the NAS Report gathered and evaluated as many polygraph validation studies as possible. The committee located 217 research reports of 194 separate studies. NAS Report, supra, at 107. Of those studies, 102 were deemed of sufficient quality to be included in the committee's review of the polygraph. Id. Each of these studies met the following minimum criteria developed by the committee: (1) documentation of examination procedures sufficient to allow a basic replication; (2) independently determined truth; (3) inclusion of both guilty and innocent individuals as determined by truth criteria; (4) sufficient information for quantitative estimation of accuracy; (5) polygraph scoring conducted blind to information about truth; and, (6) in experimental studies, appropriate assignment to experimental groups germane to estimating accuracy (mainly, guilt and innocence). Id. While the NAS Report concluded that the polygraph studies that met the criteria for consideration do not generally reach the high levels of research quality desired in science, it nonetheless observed that a sizable number of polygraph studies have ... appeared in good-quality, peer-reviewed journals. Id. at 108. The NAS Report speculated that so many polygraph studies have appeared in high-quality journals because of the practical importance of the topic and the willingness of journals to publish laboratory studies that are high in internal validity but relatively low in salience to real-world application. Id. {27} Furthermore, both Petitioners and the State submitted as exhibits a number of articles on the validity of the control question polygraph, some of which were published in peer-reviewed journals. While the State argues these articles are insufficient and cannot be relied upon to establish the validity of the control question polygraph, that is not our focus at this point in the Alberico/Daubert inquiry. We are only looking at whether the scientific technique has been subjected to peer review and publication, not the validity of the scientific research or the scientific community's response to the research. While there has certainly been a heated debate in the scientific community on the validity and accuracy of the control question polygraph, that debate is a question of weight and not of admissibility. Anderson, 118 N.M. at 298, 881 P.2d at 43. The fact that an ongoing debate exists is all that is required for this factor to be deemed satisfied. Notwithstanding the NAS Report's criticisms of the polygraph validation studies conducted, we conclude that the NAS Report sufficiently establishes that the polygraph has been subjected to peer review and publication. We now turn to the validity of the scientific research on the control question polygraph.
{28} The third factor of the Daubert/Alberico analysis requires us to examine the known or potential rate of error of the control question polygraph. Anderson, 118 N.M. at 291, 881 P.2d at 36. With regard to the rate of error of the control question polygraph, the district court concluded that [t]he potential rate of error is vague and unreliable and because the base rate is unknown the reliability of test results as reflected in an actual percentage misrepresents the confidence level in the test. {29} As noted in the preceding section of this opinion, a number of polygraph validation studies have been conducted and subsequently published. A review of those studies revealed that the median accuracy index of the polygraph in laboratory studies is 0.86 with an interquartile range of 0.81 to 0.91. NAS Report, supra, at 122. The controlled question test specifically had a median accuracy index of 0.85, with an interquartile range from 0.83 to 0.90. Id. at 125. The field studies reviewed had a median accuracy index of 0.89, with a range from 0.711 to 0.999. Id. The interquartile range of accuracy indexes for all the studies, laboratory and field, was 0.81 to 0.91. Id. at 126. Based on the foregoing, the NAS Report concluded the empirical data clearly indicate that for several populations of naive examinees not trained in countermeasures, polygraph tests for event-specific investigation detect deception at rates well above those expected from random guessing. Id. at 149. The State argues the high accuracy rates derived from the studies are invalid for a number of reasons. {30} Specifically, the NAS Report was concerned that the high accuracy rates for polygraph examinations in the studies may not correspond with what can be expected when the polygraph is used in real-life situations. The hypothesis underlying the control question polygraph technique is that physiological responses increase the more concerned the subjects are about being deceptive, which, if true, means polygraph accuracy in laboratory models [might] be on average somewhat below true accuracy in field practice, where the stakes are higher. Id. at 127. However, the NAS Report noted that [t]here is a plausible contrary hypothesis... in which examinees who fear being falsely accused have strong emotional responses that mimic those of the truly deceptive, in which case field conditions might have more false-positive errors than are observed in the laboratory and less accuracy. Id. Furthermore, the NAS Report noted that [s]ubstantial experience with clinical diagnostic and screening tests suggests that laboratory models, as well as observational field studies of the type found in the polygraph literature, are likely to overstate true polygraph accuracy. Id. at 128. {31} The NAS Report also identified several specific issues that may affect the accuracy of any polygraph examinations that have not been fully researched. First, while individual differences in physiological makeup, personality traits, and sociocultural group identity may affect the accuracy of the polygraph, the research on these individual differences is scant. See id. at 134-37. Second, while examiner expectancies of guilt may influence either the examiners' judgments of the polygraph charts or the examinees' physiological responses during the examination, [the] evidence is too limited to draw any strong conclusions about whether examiners' expectancies affect polygraph test accuracy. Id. at 138. Third, given the few studies performed, the few drugs tested, and the analogue nature of the evidence, a conclusion that drugs do not affect polygraph validity would be premature. Id. at 139. Fourth, while some empirical research indicates mental and physical countermeasures can decrease the likelihood of a polygraph examination detecting deceptive examinees, id. at 143, the NAS Report noted the limitations of that research, id. at 143-44. The NAS Report specifically stated we do not know of scientific studies examining the effectiveness of countermeasures in contexts where systematic efforts are made to detect and deter them. Id. at 151. {32} In Anderson, we considered the known or potential rate of error in the DNA profiling process at issue in that case. 118 N.M. at 298-99, 881 P.2d at 43-44. Similar to the State in this case, the defendant in Anderson argued that the accuracy rates of the DNA profiling process in that case were invalid for a number of reasons. While we noted that the deficiencies in calculating the rate of error was troubling, we stated the deficiencies in that case [spoke] to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility. Id. at 299, 881 P.2d at 44. In this case, we reach the same conclusion. Polygraph results are far from conclusive; however, as the NAS Report concluded, numerous studies have shown that polygraph tests can detect deception at rates well above chance. In fact, testimony at the evidentiary hearing indicates that the degree of accuracy of polygraph examinations is similar to many diagnostic techniques employed in the medical field, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CAT scanning, ultrasound, and x-ray film. The opponent of polygraph evidence has ample opportunity through cross-examination and argumentation to cast doubt upon the results of any particular polygraph examination that have been admitted into evidence. {33} The State nevertheless argues that the rate of error for polygraph evidence is unknown because the base rate is unknown. The district court found that the base rate, or ground truth, is the proportion of people in a population as they relate to a particular trait in issue. In the context of the polygraph, the base rate is generally the percentage of persons in a sample who are telling the truth. For example, if a polygraph study involved 100 subjects, and 85 of the subjects were actually telling the truth, the base rate would be 85%. The base rate does not measure the accuracy of the polygraph, which is the ability of the polygraph itself to correctly identify deceptive subjects and truthful subjects. The base rate is a measure only of the percentage of truthful subjects in the sample population. The true base rate is unknowable, but is theoretically important because it defines the degree of confidence properly afforded a particular polygraph result. Following are two examples used by the State to illustrate the point. In both examples the polygraph is assumed to be 90% accurate in detecting deception. Therefore, with a population of 100 subjects, the polygraph would correctly identify 90 of the subjects as either truthful or deceptive, while incorrectly identifying the remaining 10 subjects. {34} In the first example, we assume a base rate of 50%, that is 50 of the 100 subjects are being truthful in their polygraph examination. Thus, with an accuracy rate of 90%, the polygraph will correctly identify 45 persons as deceptive and 45 persons as truthful, and it will incorrectly identify 5 persons as deceptive and 5 persons as truthful: Not Deceptive Deceptive Pass 45 5 Fail 5 45 In the second example, we assume that only 10% of the 100 subjects are being truthful, while the remaining 90% are being deceptive. As a result, 81 of the 90 deceptive subjects will be accurately identified as deceptive and the remaining 9 will be incorrectly identified as truthful. Therefore, in this sample of 100 subjects, 9 truthful subjects will pass, but 9 deceptive subjects will also pass. Of the 18 subjects deemed to have passed the polygraph, there is only a 50% likelihood that any individual subject was actually truthful: Not Deceptive Deceptive Pass 9 9 Fail 1 81 These examples illustrate the importance of the base rate: in a pool with a higher percentage of deceptive subjects, the likelihood that a passed polygraph indicates actual truthfulness decreases. Specifically, in the first example a passed polygraph examination is 90% likely to be correct; whereas, in the second example, a passed polygraph is only 50% likely to be correct. {35} We cannot determine the base rate in the context of the polygraph because we cannot determine in advance how many persons are telling the truth and how many are not. However, the base rate has no effect on the reliability of the polygraph  regardless of whether 50% or 90% of the sample population is deceptive, the accuracy of the polygraph remains unchanged. The base rate only affects the confidence that we have in making decisions based on the results of any one polygraph examination. The accuracy of the polygraph in both of the above examples was the same, but in the second example we would have less confidence than in the first example that a passed polygraph examination was correct. Nonetheless, even in the second example, evidence that a subject passed a polygraph examination has a tendency to make the existence of a fact more or less probable than it would be in the absence of the evidence. Prior to the subject passing the polygraph examination, we would have assumed only a 10% chance that subject was truthful. After passing the examination, though, the likelihood the subject was truthful has increased to 50%. Therefore, the fact that the base rate is unknowable does not preclude admissibility under Rule 11-702. It simply provides another basis for the opposing party to cast doubt upon the results of a particular polygraph examination through cross-examination and argumentation. We now turn to whether standards exist controlling the polygraph.
{36} Additionally, we examine the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594, 113 S.Ct. 2786. The district court found that [t]here are no set standards [for the administration of the control question polygraph] other than those set out in Rule 11-707, which the court concluded were insufficient. {37} In this state, it is unlawful to practice polygraphy for any remuneration without a license issued by the [regulation and licensing] department in accordance with the Private Investigators and Polygraphers Act. NMSA 1978, § 61-27A-3(E) (1993). To qualify for a license to practice polygraphy, a person must meet the requirements of NMSA 1978, § 61-27A-6(G) (1993), which states: G. The department shall issue a license for polygrapher to a person who files a completed application accompanied by the required fees and who submits satisfactory evidence that the applicant: (1) is at least eighteen years of age; (2) possesses a high school diploma or its equivalent; (3) has not been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; and (4) has graduated from a polygraph examiners course approved by the department and: (a) has completed a probationary operational competency period and passed an examination of ability to practice polygraphy; or (b) has submitted proof of holding, for a minimum of two years immediately prior to the date of application, a current license to practice polygraphy in another jurisdiction whose standards equal or surpass those of New Mexico. {38} Furthermore, Rule 11-707(B) imposes additional restrictions on who can testify as an expert witness regarding polygraph results. A polygraph expert must have at least five (5) years' experience in administration or interpretation of polygraph examinations or equivalent academic training. Rule 11-707(B)(1). Also, the polygraph expert must have successfully completed at least twenty (20) hours of continuing education in the field of polygraph examinations during the twelve (12) month period immediately prior to the date of the examination. Rule 11-707(B)(3). Between the restrictions governing who can perform polygraph examinations in this state and those governing who can testify regarding polygraph results, sufficient standards are in place controlling the polygraph examiner. {39} Also, Rules 11-707(C) and (E) contain a number of prerequisites to the admission of polygraph results: C. Admissibility of results. Subject to the provisions of these rules, the opinion of a polygraph examiner may in the discretion of the trial judge be admitted as evidence as to the truthfulness of any person called as a witness if the examination was performed by a person who is qualified as an expert polygraph examiner pursuant to the provisions of this rule and if: (1) the polygraph examination was conducted in accordance with the provisions of this rule; (2) the polygraph examination was quantitatively scored in a manner that is generally accepted as reliable by polygraph experts; (3) prior to conducting the polygraph examination the polygraph examiner was informed as to the examinee's background, health, education and other relevant information; (4) at least two (2) relevant questions were asked during the examination; and (5) at least three (3) charts were taken of the examinee. ... E. Recording of tests. The pretest interview and actual testing shall be recorded in full on an audio or video recording device. It has been noted by one commentator that [i]n the treatment of the technical aspects of polygraph examination protocol, [Rule 11-707] goes far beyond the case law or statutes of any other jurisdiction in providing usable standards. James R. McCall, Misconceptions and Reevaluation  Polygraph Admissibility After Rock and Daubert, 1996 U. Ill. L.Rev. 363, 388 (1996). {40} The American Polygraph Association (APA), the leading polygraph professional association, has developed protocol standards for the polygraph similar to those contained in Rule 11-707. See American Polygraph Association, Division III: APA Standards of Practice (Jan. 10, 1999), available at http://www.polygraph.org/standards.htm. Under these standards, prior to examination, the polygraph examiner must make a reasonable effort to determine whether an examinee is fit for polygraph testing by inquiring into the medical and psychological condition of the examinee, as well as any recent drug use by the examinee, APA Standard 3.4.1; the polygraph instruments must be APA approved and have been calibrated, APA Standard 3.5; and a pretest interview must be conducted where the examiner both discusses with the examinee the polygraph process and the issues to be tested and ensures that the examinee recognizes and understands each question, APA Standard 3.8. During the examination, the questions used must be clear and distinct, APA Standard 3.9.3; the questions used must be balanced in terms of length and impact, APA Standard 3.9.4; the examiner must collect a sufficient number of charts, APA Standard 3.9.5; standardized chart markings should be used, APA Standard 3.9.7; and either an audio or audio/video recording of the pretest and in-test phase of the examination must be made, APA Standard 3.9.8. As for scoring the chart, the examiner must use numerical scoring, APA Standard 3.10.1; and the examiner's notes must have sufficient clarity and precision so that another examiner could read them, APA Standard 3.10.2. {41} Based on the foregoing, we conclude sufficient standards are in place governing the control question polygraph technique, so as to allow expert testimony on the subject to be admissible. In order for polygraph expert evidence to be admissible under Rule 11-707, the polygraph examination must be conducted in a particular manner by a qualified examiner. Furthermore, as previously explained, the APA has established even more detailed standards of practice in order to ensure the utmost degree of accuracy in detecting truthfulness or deception with the polygraph.
{42} Finally, while general acceptance is not a requirement for admissibility under [Rule 11-702], it is a factor the court may consider. Anderson, 118 N.M. at 299, 881 P.2d at 44. As the United States Supreme Court noted in Daubert, a known technique which has been able to attract only minimal support within the community may properly be viewed with skepticism. 509 U.S. at 594, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (quotation marks and quoted authority omitted). In this case, the district court concluded that [c]ontrol question polygraph tests are not accepted in the relevant scientific community at a significant level, particularly considering the age of the technique. {43} In arguing whether the control question polygraph has been generally accepted by the relevant scientific community, the parties have identified four surveys of psychologists' opinions regarding polygraph examinations, including: The Gallup Organization, Survey of Members of the Society for Psychological Research Concerning Their Opinion of Polygraph Test Interpretation, 13 Polygraph 153 (1984) [hereinafter Gallup Survey]; Susan L. Amato, A Survey of Members of The Society for Psychophysiological Research Regarding the Polygraph: Opinions and Implications (1993) (unpublished Master's thesis, University of North Dakota) (on file with the University of North Dakota Library) [hereinafter Amato Survey]; W.G. Iacono & D.T. Lykken, The Validity of the Lie Detector: Two Surveys of Scientific Opinion, 82 J. of Applied Psychol. 426 (1997) [hereinafter Iacono Survey]; and Honts et al., General Acceptance of the Polygraph by the Scientific Community (Mar. 9, 2002) (unpublished paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychology Law Society, on file with author) [hereinafter Honts Survey]. Of these four surveys, the district court found the Iacono survey to be the most reliable, and relied exclusively on that survey in drawing its conclusion that control question polygraph examinations do not enjoy general acceptance within the scientific community. {44} In the Gallup Survey, conducted in 1982, a random sample of 155 members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research were interviewed regarding their opinion of the use of polygraph testing procedures to detect deception. Gallup Survey, supra, at 154. When asked their opinion of polygraph tests for interpreting whether a subject is or is not telling the truth, 61% of the respondents agreed that the polygraph is a useful diagnostic tool when considered with other available information. Id. at 157. An additional 32% agreed that the polygraph is of questionable usage and is entitled to little weight against other information. Id. Only 3% believed that the polygraph is of no usefulness. Id. In 1993, Amato replicated the Gallup Survey in an effort to determine if there were any changes in the scientific community's opinions on the validity of the polygraph in the preceding ten years. Amato Survey, supra, at 1. The Amato Survey received 136 total responses, for a response rate of approximately 30%. Id. at 2. This time, when asked the same question as in the Gallup Survey, 60% of the respondents agreed that the polygraph is a useful diagnostic tool, 37% agreed it is of questionable usage, and 2% believed it was of no usefulness. Id. at 3. {45} In 1997, two groups of scientists were surveyed in an attempt to more thoroughly assess current scientific opinion about polygraphy. Iacono Survey, supra, at 427. The first group surveyed by Iacono was the same one used in both the Gallup Survey and the Amato Survey  the Society of Psychophysiological Research. Id. at 428. Questionnaires were sent to 216 society members, and 195 members responded. Id. at 429. Of those who responded and had an opinion on the polygraph, only 36% believed that the control question technique is based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory; whereas, 77% believed the guilty knowledge test is based on sound psychological principles. Id. at 430. The second group surveyed was the Fellows of Division 1 (General Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. Id. at 428. Questionnaires were mailed to 249 APA Fellows, and 168 usable questionnaires were returned. Id. at 429. In this group, only 30% believed the control question technique is based on sound psychological principles and 72% believed the same of the guilty knowledge test. Id. at 430. {46} Finally, in 2002, a paper was presented at the meetings of the American Psychology Law Society (APLS) that was based on two surveys: one of the APLS and one of the SPR. Honts Survey, supra, at 1, 8. Only 55 out of 205 APLS members responded, and 38 out of 366 SPR members responded. Id. at 8. Of those who responded, 96% of the APLS members and 91% of the SPR members believed that polygraph studies published in scientific peer-reviewed journals are based on generally accepted scientific methodology. Id. at 14. When asked to compare the usefulness of the polygraph to other specific examples of commonly admitted evidence, more than half of the respondents believed that polygraph evidence is as useful or more useful than a psychologist's opinion of parental fitness, a psychologist's opinion regarding malingering, an eyewitness identification of a robbery suspect, a psychological assessment of dangerousness, and a psychological assessment of temporary insanity. Id. at 15. Finally, slightly more than half of the APLS respondents and slightly less than half of the SPR respondents believed that the accuracy of judicial verdicts would be increased if polygraph test results were admitted as evidence at trial. Id. at 16. {47} As noted earlier in this opinion, see supra ¶ 27, there is a heated debate in the scientific community on the validity of the control question polygraph examination. This debate is reflected by the competing surveys cited above. The Iacono Survey was conducted by Dr. William Iacono, Professor of Psychology at the University of Minnesota, who testified on behalf of the State at the evidentiary hearing below. The Amato Study was a Master's thesis conducted under the guidance of Dr. Charles Honts, Professor of Psychology at Boise State. Dr. Honts also was the lead scientist of the Honts Study. He testified on behalf of the Respondents at the hearing below. The hearing below was not the first time that Dr. Iacono and Dr. Honts have been on opposing sides in the debate over the admissibility of polygraph examination results. Compare David C. Raskin, Charles R. Honts & John C. Kircher, The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques: The Case for Polygraph Tests, in 1 Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony § 14-2.0 (David L. Faigman et al. eds., 1997); with William G. Iacono & David T. Lykken, The Scientific Status of Research on Polygraph Techniques: The Case Against Polygraph Tests, in 1 Modern Scientific Evidence, supra, § 14-3.0. Based on the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the control question polygraph has been generally accepted within the scientific community. However, we also cannot conclude that the control question polygraph has been uniformly rejected by the scientific community. This factor thus carries little weight in our Alberico /Daubert analysis of the control question polygraph.