Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Hollis Clark

United States v. Hollis Clark, 598 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1979)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1979-07-13
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: In this mail conspiracy conviction, 18 U.S. C.A. §§ 1708, 371, the defendant’s knowledge and intent were critical. The sole contention on this appeal is that the trial court should have admitted the results of a polygraph examination of defendant relating to his specific intent regarding his involvement in the mail theft conspiracy. He argues that the evidentiary exclusion violated his constitutional right of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Although other circuits have granted some discretion in admitting polygraph evidence, United States v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Hollis Clark. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
26 opinions
UNITED STATES v. CLARK,598 F.2d 994(5th Cir. 1979)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. HOLLIS CLARK,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 79-5102.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 13, 1979.
Thomas C. Bianco, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellant.

Craig A. Gillen, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.Page 995
Before GOLDBERG, RONEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] In this mail conspiracy conviction,18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1708,371, the defendant's knowledge and intent were critical. The sole contention on this appeal is that the trial court should have admitted the results of a polygraph examination of defendant relating to his specific intent regarding his involvement in the mail theft conspiracy. He argues that the evidentiary exclusion violated his constitutional right of due process under theFifthandFourteenthAmendments to the United States Constitution.

[2] Although other circuits have granted some discretion in admitting polygraph evidence,United States v. Mayes,512 F.2d 637,648n. 6 (6th Cir.),cert. denied,422 U.S. 1008,95 S.Ct. 2629,45 L.Ed.2d 670(1975);United States v. Flores,540 F.2d 432,436-437(9th Cir. 1976);United States v. Ridling,350 F. Supp. 90(E.D.Mich. 1972), the Fifth Circuit precedents unequivocally hold that such evidence is inadmissible.UnitedStates v. Masri,547 F.2d 932,936(5th Cir.),cert. denied,431 U.S. 932,97 S.Ct. 2640,53 L.Ed.2d 249(1977);UnitedStates v. Cochran,499 F.2d 380,393(5th Cir. 1974),cert.denied,419 U.S. 1124,95 S.Ct. 810,42 L.Ed.2d 825(1975);United States v. Gloria,494 F.2d 477,483(5th Cir. 1974);United States v. Frogge,476 F.2d 969,970(5th Cir. 1973).

[3] Any suggested deviation from the clear law of this Circuit would have to be addressed to the en banc court.United Statesv. Hernandez,580 F.2d 188,191(5th Cir. 1978),aff'd andremanded,591 F.2d 1019(en banc) (1979).

[4] AFFIRMED.
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; seeIsbell Enterprises, Inc. v. CitizensCasualty Co. of New York et al.,5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩