United States v. Hollis Clark

598 F.2d 994, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13199
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 13, 1979
Docket79-5102
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 598 F.2d 994 (United States v. Hollis Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Hollis Clark, 598 F.2d 994, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13199 (5th Cir. 1979).

Opinion

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. Mayes, 512 F.2d 637, 648 n.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. United States 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); United States 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).

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

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Ulmer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
897 F. Supp. 299 (W.D. Louisiana, 1995)
United States v. Joe Allen Bounds
985 F.2d 188 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)
Commonwealth v. Mendes
547 N.E.2d 35 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1989)
United States v. Julio Piccinonna
885 F.2d 1529 (Eleventh Circuit, 1989)
United States v. James Alan "Jamie" Vigliatura
878 F.2d 1346 (Eleventh Circuit, 1989)
Simeon v. State
520 So. 2d 81 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
United States v. Edward Hilton and Joan Hilton
772 F.2d 783 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)
United States v. Arturo Rodriguez, Vincente Ramirez
765 F.2d 1546 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)
Peranzo v. Coughlin
608 F. Supp. 1504 (S.D. New York, 1985)
Hester v. City of Milledgeville
598 F. Supp. 1456 (M.D. Georgia, 1984)
United States v. Anthony Beck
729 F.2d 1329 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)
People v. Anderson
637 P.2d 354 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1981)
United States v. Martino
648 F.2d 367 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
598 F.2d 994, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hollis-clark-ca5-1979.