Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hollis CLARK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1979-07-13
Citations: 598 F.2d 994
Docket Number: No. 79-5102
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hollis CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GOLDBERG, RONEY and TJO-FLAT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 598
Pages: 994–995

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hollis CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 79-5102
Summary Calendar.
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.
Before GOLDBERG, RONEY and TJO-FLAT, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

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.