Summary of the practice of using the capabilities of a polygraph in investigating crimes.
Appendix to the letter of the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia (outgoing No. 28-15-05 dated 02/14/2006)
Law enforcement agencies are constantly working to introduce forensic tools into investigative practice, which facilitate the timely detection of crimes and the formation of an evidence base for criminal cases.
In recent years, investigative and operational agencies have increasingly begun to turn to the capabilities of the polygraph (lie detector, “bark detector”), which has been used for more than half a century in many countries around the world.
The Criminalistics Department of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, based on an analysis of information from the prosecutor's offices of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, has summarized the practice of using a polygraph in investigating crimes.
The summary showed that the polygraph has come to be used not only in the implementation of operational-search activities, but also to obtain new evidence by conducting psychophysiological studies in the form of an expert or specialist's opinion.
Interviews are mainly conducted by polygraph specialists employed by the internal affairs agencies. Examinations are appointed and conducted in the divisions of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs and in expert institutions of the Russian Ministry of Justice, as well as by freelance experts.
One of the illustrative examples of the use of a polygraph in solving a crime is the investigation of a criminal case on the fact of the murder of Zakharova N. (Amur Region).
The body of a resident of the city of Shimanovsk with signs of violent death in the form of two penetrating stab wounds was found on April 19, 2004 on the bank of the Pera River.
Based on the data from the inspection of the crime scene, the investigation put forward a version that the place where the body was found was only a place where it was hidden.
The victim's home was inspected, during which traces of a brown substance were found between the floorboards and on things.
Before her disappearance, Zakharova N. cohabited with Bakanov Yu., who was described as an aggressive and cruel person.
Bakanov testified that Zakharova left in an unknown direction, and that he was staying with friends at the time of interest to the investigation.
After the investigation failed to confirm the suspect's alibi and the location of his brother (who committed the crime — according to Bakanov's amended testimony) could not be established, a decision was made to use a broader range of measures when checking Bakanov for involvement in the murder, including conducting a polygraph interview.
Its use exceeded all expectations.
The results indicated that Bakanov may be involved in committing a number of similar crimes.
The information received served as an impetus for further work by the investigative team.
The result of painstaking work was the extraction of irrefutable evidence of the intentional causing of death by Bakanov to his father, who was wanted as a missing person, his common-law wife, as well as acquaintances Ukov and Gorpanyuk.
By the verdict of the Amur Regional Court of May 10, 2005, Bakanov was found guilty of all the crimes incriminated to him and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment.
In cases where there are no suspects in criminal cases, persons from the victim's circle, the registered contingent living in the area where the crime was committed are systematically identified and checked by investigative and operational means, and other measures are also taken.
Thus, when the bodies of Dydyan and Smirnov (Chita Region) were found with signs of violent death, acquaintances of the deceased were brought in for questioning using a polygraph to determine whether they had any information about this crime.
The conclusion made by the specialist after talking with one of them — Molokov, indicated that they had information on the essence of significant details of the crime event.
Subsequently, Molokov's involvement in the murder was confirmed through legal proceedings.
In the criminal case on the murder of the guard shooter Metudanov S., whose body with a gunshot wound to the head was found in the premises of Shreya-Corporation CJSC (Republic of Buryatia), all employees of the enterprise were questioned using a polygraph.
During the interrogation of the driver Zarubin V., information was obtained that he was highly likely to be involved in the crime and had knowledge of the participation of his accomplice — Banzaraktsaev.
These circumstances allowed us to critically examine Zarubin's previously put forward alibi, and then refute it. The said accomplice was also exposed, and the TT pistol stolen from the victim was found.
In accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the assessment of evidence is carried out based on the inner conviction of the participants in the criminal process, and the polygraph can play a certain role as an additional element of conviction in the innocence of a particular person in the act incriminated to him or, conversely, contribute to a change in the focus of the investigation, a departure from incorrect assumptions about the involvement of persons in the events under investigation.
The Chelyabinsk Regional Court sentenced R. Khametov to 18 years in prison for the murder of Golub A., coupled with rape.
At an early stage of the investigation, the Fyodorovs came into the attention of law enforcement agencies, and a full range of investigative and operational measures were carried out against them.
Negative information obtained during the polygraph test, along with other information (from interrogation reports and the conclusion of the genotyposcopic examination) made it possible to justifiably exclude the brothers from the list of suspects.
The results of the preliminary investigation and polygraph interviews confirmed the non-involvement of Taratynov E. and Samyshkin A. in the murder of Letyaev S. (Samara Region).
There are many examples that testify to the psychological effect of the polygraph on the interviewed persons, when the presentation of the interview results (often in conjunction with other evidence available to the investigation) prompted them to give confessions.
The prosecutor's office of the Soviet district of the Chelyabinsk region was investigating a criminal case initiated on the fact of the disappearance of Ushakov S.
The citizen who drove the car in which, according to the testimony of Ushakova G., her husband left home was identified.
The driver presented documents indicating that Ushakova G. sold the car that was wanted immediately after the disappearance.
This circumstance, as well as the interrogation protocols of relatives and neighbors, with a high degree of probability allowed us to assume that Ushakova G. committed the murder of her husband.
The results of the polygraph examination corresponded to the material collected by the investigation. Having read the conclusion of the polygraph specialist, the suspect confessed to the crime committed, indicating the place where the body was hidden.
In October 2002, a resident of the Vologda Region, Laskovets V., filed a report with the Cherepovets Department of Internal Affairs about the disappearance of his wife. The investigation materials served as the basis for initiating a criminal case.
An inspection of the applicant's apartment, garage and car did not yield any positive results, and during an inspection of the summer house and bathhouse, brown stains were found, which, according to the conclusion of the forensic medical examination of the material evidence, were blood that could have come from the wanted person. There were contradictions in the testimony of Laskovets V.
A decision was made to conduct a polygraph survey, during which it was revealed that the body was hidden on a summer cottage, and Laskovets V. was involved in the murder of his wife and knew where the crime weapon was.
After presenting the suspect with the results of the survey and the conclusions of the expert — a biologist, he indicated the location of the body and the crime weapon.
By conducting a survey using a polygraph, it is also possible to eliminate any contradictions that arise.
In the criminal case on causing serious bodily harm, which resulted in the death of Toktokhoev Ts. (Republic of Buryatia) through negligence, the son of the victim, having initially testified about inflicting fatal wounds on his father in the presence of his uncle Tseretarorov, subsequently explained that his mother, Dymbralova, who, after appearing at the prosecutor's office, admitted that she had struck her husband on the head with a hammer, may have been involved in the murder.
In this case, it was the polygraph surveys that allowed us to reconstruct the events, as a result of which the initial version, about the son committing the crime, was confirmed.
It cannot be ruled out that refusal to participate in a polygraph survey is a certain indicator indicating the possible involvement of the person in the event under investigation.
The unwillingness of the suspect to participate in this event (in the absence of circumstances preventing its implementation, such as a certain disease and others) should alert the members of the investigative team and serve as the basis for an in-depth study of the personality of the “refusenik”, the nature of his relationship with the victim.
In the criminal case initiated on the fact of the disappearance of Gaidarev A., co-founder of “Siblesprofil” (Novosibirsk region), the increased attention of law enforcement agencies was attracted by Gaidarev’s commercial partner Rastorguev A..
This was also caused by the fact that Rastorguev A. repeatedly refused to undergo a polygraph test. This circumstance led to the advancement of the priority version — the murder of the businessman by his partner.
The correctly chosen direction became the key to solving the crime — the guilty persons, Rastorguev A. and his accomplice Krasnenko A., were brought to criminal responsibility.
The result of selecting reasonable and necessary questions to the interviewed person may be not only the possibility of obtaining a confession, but also the identification of additional circumstances that significantly expand the evidentiary base, namely: the establishment of material evidence, the search for a corpse.
In the criminal case on the disappearance of Mingazova E. (Udmurt Republic), a polygraph test showed the direct relation of Makarov V. to the disappearance of the girl.
A bright positive reaction was observed when he answered the questions: did he beat Mingazova E., did he have sexual intercourse with her.
When asked about the whereabouts of the wanted person, his positive reaction to the word “forest” was noted. Using the data obtained, police officers discovered the victim’s body with signs of violent death during an inspection of the forest.
When identifying the body, Makarov V. gave a detailed account of the criminal act he had committed.
On December 16, 1999, in the city of Yelizovo, Kamchatka Region, the body of citizen Pleskach with a cut wound to the neck was discovered in an apartment in a residential building.
Suspicion fell on the victim's former cohabitant, Anikeyev, but he tried to create an alibi for the time of interest to the investigation with the help of friends.
Their testimony was questionable, which is why a decision was made to conduct a polygraph interview.
In a pre-test interview, the person being tested explained that he was informed about the murder by the police, but did not know the details of what happened.
During the interrogation, he showed no interest in what was happening and answered questions in monosyllables.
At the same time, the polygraph examiner concluded that Anikeyev knew all the details of the crime: the method of entry into the apartment, the location of the murder, the crime weapon, as well as the victim's clothing, but he was hiding it.
At that time, the investigation did not have any evidence against Anikeyev; the crime weapon was not found.
To establish the location of the crime weapon, the specialist compiled a search test reflecting the most likely locations, during the implementation of which the respondent responded to the question: the weapon was thrown out near the house where the murder took place.
When inspecting the surrounding area using a metal detector, a kitchen knife was found, expert reports on which recorded both the presence of fingerprints of the suspect and the blood of the victim.
A search test aimed at establishing Anikeyev's clothing showed that he showed up for questioning in the same clothes in which he committed the crime.
Sometimes the use of a polygraph is due to the need to specify the actions of the accused.
During the investigation of the murder of Lyuka L. (Bryansk Region), signs of poisoning were established, as well as the presence of multiple stab wounds.
The accused Furletova O. and Bulbenkova M., trying to mislead the investigation, gave contradictory testimony about the circumstances of the crime, shifting the burden of responsibility onto each other, while denying the fact of using clonidine.
The investigator decided to conduct a survey using a polygraph, and together with a specialist, a list of questions was developed.
The survey recorded the most vivid emotional reactions: Furletova — to the mechanism of causing knife wounds, Bulbenkova — to the mixing of a medicinal drug.
Later, already in the course of the investigation, the actions of the accused were distinguished.
Law enforcement agencies of a number of subjects of the Russian Federation use the capabilities of the polygraph somewhat more widely.
The practice of involving a polygraph specialist in the work of the investigative team at its earliest stage in the Bryansk region deserves attention.
Considering that the formulation of significant questions, the outcome of contact with the interlocutor depend on the volume of available information, its receipt during direct observation of the situation, the specialist leaves almost immediately to the scene of the incident together with the criminal investigation officers.
Employees of the prosecutor's offices of the Altai Territory, Perm, Kirov, Lipetsk and Tver regions, based on the study of the materials of criminal cases, if necessary, give instructions on the use of a polygraph.
In the Perm Region, over the past 5 years, 650 surveys have been conducted on the orders of prosecutors alone.
In the Kamchatka and Vologda Regions, prosecutors, together with a polygraph examiner and criminal investigation officers, develop a set of questions for subjects, plan the time and tactics of conducting the survey, and in the Komi Republic, before using a polygraph to record voluntary participation and consent, they conduct interrogations.
In the Rostov Region, the investigation attaches to the materials of criminal cases the results of interrogation using a polygraph, drawn up in the form of extracts from a certificate or reports.
In this case, the tasks for the inquiry body to conduct research are given by investigators of the prosecutor's office within the framework of separate assignments for the implementation of operational-search activities.
There are not many examples yet of information obtained using a polygraph being one of the circumstances of procedural significance for a criminal case, but their number is growing.
By the verdict of the Uvelsky District Court of the Chelyabinsk Region of September 29, 2003, Maltsev V. was found guilty of committing a crime under Part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, with a sentence of 8 years' imprisonment.
In substantiating the proven guilt of the defendant, the court indicated that the testimony of witness Garifulin A. was consistent with the data from his and Maltsev V.'s polygraph examination.
At the initial stage of the investigation, Garifullin A. and Maltsev V. claimed that the latter's father, whose body was found in the cellar of his house, died as a result of an accident.
Since the conclusion of the forensic medical examination ruled out the victim receiving bodily injuries in accordance with the testimony of the named persons, a polygraph was used for questioning.
After explaining to Garifulin A. the purpose of using a lie detector, he confessed that Maltsev V. had beaten his father until he died.
After throwing the body into the cellar, he asked Garifulin A. to give false testimony. The results of Maltsev V.'s interrogation indicated that his information regarding the circumstances of his father's death was false.
In this case, as in the criminal cases of the murder of Sorokin and Efremov (Moscow), a certificate of the results of the polygraph interrogation was attached to the materials of the criminal case.
The Federal Judge of the Meshchansky District Court of the Central Administrative District of Moscow, in his verdict on the results of the consideration of the criminal case against Yakusheva I. for committing murder without aggravating circumstances, made a reference to the certificate of the results of the interview using a polygraph.
In this case, the certificate, according to which “with a high degree of probability Yakusheva I.N. was involved in the murder of citizen Sorokin” was used by the judge as evidence confirming guilt.
In the criminal case on the murder of Efremov S., the defendant Avdeev D. refused to confess.
The Kuntsevsky District Court of Moscow, based on the testimony obtained during the preliminary investigation, substantiated its decision, among other things, by the fact that “the criminal case materials contain a certificate based on the results of Avdeev’s interrogation using a polygraph, which states that Avdeev committed the murder of Efremov and that the body is located in the place indicated by Avdeev.”
The transformation of the results of a polygraph interrogation, as one of the types of operational-search measures, into a procedural form for subsequent use in the process of proof has found its distribution in the Bryansk Region, where the mechanism for recording the results of the interrogation consists of the following stages:
- a memorandum certificate is attached to the criminal case materials about
operational-search activities carried out and a certificate from a polygraph specialist; - interrogation of a specialist about the results of the survey and scientific methods used in taking data and calculating the results of polygrams;
— interrogation of a previously interrogated person with presentation of the results of the survey.
Recognizing the materials of the polygraph test as other documents (in accordance with Chapter 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), prosecutors use them later as evidence, including reflecting them in the final document — the indictment.
The prosecutor's office of the Astrakhan region adheres to a similar position on the involvement of polygraph examiners as specialists using the specified procedural rules.
In the criminal case on the murder of Kiryanov G. (Klintsovsky district of the Bryansk region), the person who committed the crime was identified through the use of a polygraph, and the method of its commission was determined.
During the court hearings, a polygraph specialist was questioned, whose testimony, along with other evidence, formed the basis for the guilty verdict.
In total, in 2004-2005, the courts of the region questioned a polygraph specialist in 4 criminal cases.
During the trial of the criminal case of the sexually motivated murder of minor Sergeyev A., the specialist who conducted the polygraph interview was also called to the court hearing. In the guilty verdict, the judge of the court of the Jewish Autonomous Region referred to both the testimony of the specialist and his conclusion.
In a slightly different way, the most promising, the capabilities of the polygraph in establishing and proving circumstances are used by employees of the prosecutor's offices of the Astrakhan, Tambov and Saratov regions, the city of Moscow, as well as the republics of Mordovia, Buryatia and North Ossetia-Alania.
They appoint a non-traditional type of forensic examination — psychophysiological, the results of which are subsequently used as evidence when solving crimes and sending criminal cases to court.
In the Republic of Buryatia, in two criminal cases considered with the issuance of guilty verdicts, the conclusions of complex psychological and psychophysiological examinations carried out by a polygraph examiner and a psychologist were one of the pieces of evidence.
Having assessed the examined case materials, the testimony of the defendant Yursha E. that he did not commit the robbery and murder of Zhugdurova V., and that he gave his confession under the influence of unlawful methods, the judge of the Gusinoozersky City Court of the Republic of Buryatia came to the conclusion that the guilt of Yursha E. had been proven.
In doing so, the judge was also guided by the conclusion of a comprehensive psychological and psychophysiological examination, according to which “the absence among the identified individual psychological characteristics of such characteristics as a tendency to fantasize, deceit, heightened suggestibility and the presence of a normatively expressed ability to analyze one’s actions and foresee their consequences makes it unlikely that the facts presented during interrogations and during a polygraph test could be fabricated.”
Sufficient practical use of the said forensic examination was noted in the Republic of Mordovia, where in 2004 the Mordovian forensic laboratory conducted 4 such examinations by orders of prosecutor's investigators.
In the criminal case of the murder of the elderly Sheyanov sisters, their relative, Kryuchkov Yu., suspected of committing the murder, at the initial stage of the investigation, admitting his guilt, gave contradictory and inconsistent testimony, and later completely refused them, citing the mental and physical impact.
The psychophysiological examination confirmed that Kryuchkov Yu. stabbed the victims, whom he last saw alive on September 15, 2003, the day the crime was committed.
The findings of the examination were stated in the indictment and were the subject of examination at the court hearing.
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia, when announcing the guilty verdict in accordance with the jury's verdict, also recognized this expert examination as evidence.
The Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation stated in its cassation ruling that the sentence complies with the requirements of the law; there is no evidence that inadmissible evidence was examined in the case.
Expert examinations using a polygraph are also conducted at the Tambov Forensic Laboratory.
One of these studies, as follows from the verdict of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Tambov, was recognized as evidence confirming the guilt of Sosin A. and Tamaryan N. in committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In 2003, the Saratov Regional Prosecutor's Office, together with the Saratov Forensic Laboratory, developed methodological recommendations for conducting this type of examination on the basis of the said laboratory and the Saratov Regional Psychiatric Hospital.
The expert opinion was used as one of the pieces of evidence of guilt by the investigator and the state prosecutor in the criminal case against Larkin S., accused of murdering Kalashnikov A. and his elderly mother.
The conclusion of the complex psychological and psychophysiological forensic examination testified to Larkin inflicting bodily harm on Kalashnikov and committing acts of arson on the Kalashnikovs' house.
The Akhtubinsky City Court of the Astrakhan Region rejected the motion filed by the defense attorney of the defendant Abdrakhmanov A. to exclude the conclusion of the psychophysiological examination from the evidence in the criminal case of the attempted murder of a police officer.
In addition, the presiding judge (at the request of the state prosecutor) ordered three more such examinations in relation to two victims and one witness. The examinations were conducted at the Department of Internal Affairs of the Astrakhan Region.
The right of an investigator as an official (in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) to independently make a decision on the conduct of investigative and other procedural actions, including issuing a ruling on the appointment of a psychophysiological examination, was recognized by the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow when considering a lawyer's complaint about the lawful appointment of this examination.
The capabilities of a polygraph in solving and investigating crimes are widely used in the Krasnodar Territory, where a department of special psychophysiological studies operates and 30 polygraph examiners work.
In just 6 months of 2004, specialists from the region conducted more than 13,000 polygraph surveys on 5,000 crimes, of which more than 1,500 were solved.
The department's polygraph specialists are in demand not only by law enforcement agencies in the region, but also by operational units in other subjects of the Russian Federation, as well as neighboring countries.
In the Republic of Tatarstan, from 2000 to 2004, 2,117 surveys were conducted on 1,759 crimes.
The effectiveness of using a lie detector in the above-mentioned situations, as well as in many other situations that prosecutors often encounter, is undeniable.
The investigator is authorized to independently direct the course of the investigation and make decisions on investigative and other procedural actions.
At the same time, an adequate response to crime is both improving the methods of finding evidence and giving it (by permitted methods) difficult-to-dispute procedural significance.
At the same time, the basic principle of conducting a study using a polygraph should be observed — voluntary nature of the procedure.
In addition, the study must be carried out by a competent specialist with the necessary technical means.
Forensic Science Department
of the Prosecutor General's Office
of the Russian Federation