Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Hollis Clark

United States v. Hollis Clark, 622 F.2d 917 (5th Cir. 1980)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1980-07-31
Topic
finance

PER CURIAM: The order granting a rehearing en banc, 608 F.2d 238, is vacated as having been improvidently granted on the record before us, and the panel opinion, 598 F.2d 994, is reinstated. GEE, Circuit Judge, with whom BROWN, CHARLES CLARK, TJOFLAT, FAY, REAVLEY, POLITZ, ANDERSON, RANDALL, TATE, SAM D. JOHNSON, and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges, join, specially concurring. I concur in the court’s order because no proffer was made of evidence tending to show advances in the state of polygraph art since the seminal opinion in Frye 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
9 opinions
UNITED STATES v. CLARK,622 F.2d 917(5th Cir. 1980)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. HOLLIS CLARK,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 79-5102.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 31, 1980.
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, Northern District of Georgia; Newell Edenfield, District Judge.
Before COLEMAN, Chief Judge, and BROWN, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, CHARLES CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, RUBIN, VANCE, KRAVITCH, FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., GARZA, HENDERSON, REAVLEY, POLITZ, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, RANDALL, TATE, SAM D. JOHNSON and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges.fn*
PER CURIAM:
[1] The order granting a rehearing en banc,608 F.2d 238, is vacated as having been improvidently granted on the record before us, and the panel opinion,598 F.2d 994, is reinstated.
[2] GEE, Circuit Judge, with whom BROWN, CHARLES CLARK, TJOFLAT, FAY, REAVLEY, POLITZ, ANDERSON, RANDALL, TATE, SAM D. JOHNSON, and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges, join, specially concurring.
[3] I concur in the court's order because no proffer was made of evidence tending to show advances in the state of polygraph art since the seminal opinion inFrye v. United States,293 F. 1013(D.C. Cir. 1923), upon which our authorities are based, or the competence of polygraphic operators. Had one been made, in my view these authorities would properly be subject to reconsideration.Page 1207
  1. Judge Jerre S. Williams did not participate in this decision. ↩