United States v. Hollis Clark, 598 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Hollis Clark, 598 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ulmer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (lawd, 1995-09-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ulmer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
W.D. La. · 1995 · confidence medium
Co., 739 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. Clark, 598 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Joe Allen Bounds (2×)
5th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
E.g., United States v. Clark, 598 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1128 , 101 S.Ct. 949 , 67 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981).
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Julio Piccinonna (4×)
11th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
United States v. Brevard, 739 F.2d 180 (4th Cir.1984); United States v. Clark, 598 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir.1979), vacated en banc 622 F.2d 917 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1128 , 101 S.Ct. 949 , 67 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981); United States v. Skeens, 494 F.2d 1050, 1053 (D.C.Cir.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. James Alan \Jamie\" Vigliatura"
11th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Beck, 729 F.2d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir.1984) (results of defendant’s polygraph test inadmissible), cer t. denied, 469 U.S. 981 , 105 S.Ct. 383 , 83 L.Ed.2d 318 (1984); United States v. Clark, 598 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir.1979) (same), reh’g granted, 608 F.2d 238 (1979) (en banc), reinstated, 622 F.2d 917 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1128 , 101 S.Ct. 949 , 67 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hester v. City of Milledgeville
M.D. Ga. · 1984 · confidence medium
Because of the lack of scientific evidence in support of polygraph validity, polygraph results are inadmissible as evidence in criminal prosecutions, both in United States courts, see United States v. Clark, 598 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir.1979), reh’g en banc dismissed, 622 F.2d 917 (5th Cir.1980), and in Georgia courts.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barrel of Fun, Inc. D/B/A the Music Factory v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (2×) also: Cited "see"
5th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure § 5169 (1978), “[ajny suggested deviation from the clear law of this Circuit would have to be addressed to the en banc court." United States v. Clark, 598 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir.1979) (per curiam), vacated, 608 F.2d 238, reinstated, 622 F.2d 917 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1128 , 101 S.Ct. 949 , 67 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981). 9 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dennis v. Joubert, Plaintiff-Counter v. Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant-Counter
5th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
United States v. Clark, 598 F.2d 994, 995 (1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hugh Devries v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company
1st Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
E.g., United States v. Hunter, 672 F.2d 815, 817 (10th Cir.1982); United States v. Clark, 598 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir.1979), order granting rehearing en banc vacated and panel opinion reinstated, 622 F.2d 917 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1128 , 101 S.Ct. 949 , 67 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Anderson
Colo. · 1981 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Clark, 598 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Masri, 547 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 932 , 97 S.Ct. 2640 , 53 L.Ed.2d 249 (1977); United States v. Wainwright, 413 F.2d 796 (10th Cir. 1969); cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1009 , 90 S.Ct. 566 , 24 L.Ed.2d 501 (1969); Marks v. United States, 260 F.2d 377 (10th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 929 , 79 S.Ct. 315 , 3 L.Ed.2d 302 (1959). [8] "In police settings, for example, the polygraph is widely used as a means of establishing presumptive innocence.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Hollis CLARK, Defendant-Appellant
79-5102.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 13, 1979.
598 F.2d 994
1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13199
Thomas C. Bianco, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellant., Craig A. Gillen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Goldberg, Per Curiam, Roney, Tjo-Flat.
Cited by 26 opinions  |  Published
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.