Frank Edward Milano v. Sam Garrison and State of North Carolina

Fourth Circuit

Frank Edward Milano v. Sam Garrison and State of North Carolina

677 F.2d 374, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12056

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 23, 1981

Docket80-6225

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 677 F.2d 374 (Frank Edward Milano v. Sam Garrison and State of North Carolina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank Edward Milano v. Sam Garrison and State of North Carolina, 677 F.2d 374, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12056 (4th Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

WIDENER, Circuit Judge:

A jury found the petitioner, Frank Edward Milano, guilty of first degree rape in North Carolina Superior Court. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. State v. Milano, 297 N.C. 485, 256 S.E.2d 154 (1979). The district court granted the petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. We reverse.

The district court held that the exclusion of the results of a Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE) (a form of lie detector) examination favorable to Milano, while admitting by agreement the unfavorable results of a polygraph examination, denied Milano a fair trial. Finding the PSE to be at least as reliable as the polygraph, the district court relied upon its opinion in Jackson v. Garrison, 495 F.Supp. 9 (W.D.N. C.1979), and stated that lie-detector testimony “ought to be admissible in criminal prosecutions, on behalf of either side, if the defendant has testified.”

Milano does not assert that the results of PSE examinations are generally admissible. He contends that under Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), the failure of the trial court to admit the results of the PSE examination so that he could rebut the state’s polygraph evidence denied him a fair trial.

The admission of the results of the polygraph examination had been stipulated to by Milano and the prosecution. The trial court found that the polygraph examination was administered under proper conditions by a qualified polygraphist. The North Carolina Supreme Court found the trial court’s admission of the results of the polygraph test was. proper under North Carolina law. Milano, 256 S.E.2d at 162. However, the prosecution refused to stipulate to the admission of the PSE results. North Carolina law does not allow the admission of lie-detector evidence absent a stipulation to its admissibility by the parties. Milano, 297 N.C. at 493-500, 256 S.E.2d at 162-63. North Carolina’s rules regulating the admission of lie-detector evidence are “matter[s] of state law and procedure not involving federal constitutional issues.” Jackson v. Garrison, 677 F.2d 371 (4th Cir. 1981). The trial court did not deprive the petitioner of any constitutional rights when it excluded the PSE results and admitted the polygraph results; the first had not been agreed to while the latter had.

The judgment of the district court is accordingly

REVERSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WIDENER, Circuit Judge:

A jury found the petitioner, Frank Edward Milano, guilty of first degree rape in North Carolina Superior Court. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. State v. Milano, 297 N.C. 485, 256 S.E.2d 154 (1979). The district court granted the petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. We reverse.

The district court held that the exclusion of the results of a Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE) (a form of lie detector) examination favorable to Milano, while admitting by agreement the unfavorable results of a polygraph examination, denied Milano a fair trial. Finding the PSE to be at least as reliable as the polygraph, the district court relied upon its opinion in Jackson v. Garrison, 495 F.Supp. 9 (W.D.N. C.1979), and stated that lie-detector testimony “ought to be admissible in criminal prosecutions, on behalf of either side, if the defendant has testified.”

Milano does not assert that the results of PSE examinations are generally admissible. He contends that under Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), the failure of the trial court to admit the results of the PSE examination so that he could rebut the state’s polygraph evidence denied him a fair trial.

The admission of the results of the polygraph examination had been stipulated to by Milano and the prosecution. The trial court found that the polygraph examination was administered under proper conditions by a qualified polygraphist. The North Carolina Supreme Court found the trial court’s admission of the results of the polygraph test was. proper under North Carolina law. Milano, 256 S.E.2d at 162. However, the prosecution refused to stipulate to the admission of the PSE results. North Carolina law does not allow the admission of lie-detector evidence absent a stipulation to its admissibility by the parties. Milano, 297 N.C. at 493-500, 256 S.E.2d at 162-63. North Carolina’s rules regulating the admission of lie-detector evidence are “matter[s] of state law and procedure not involving federal constitutional issues.” Jackson v. Garrison, 677 F.2d 371 (4th Cir. 1981). The trial court did not deprive the petitioner of any constitutional rights when it excluded the PSE results and admitted the polygraph results; the first had not been agreed to while the latter had.

The judgment of the district court is accordingly

REVERSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

677 F.2d 374, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-edward-milano-v-sam-garrison-and-state-of-north-carolina-ca4-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack