Summary
vacating order granting rehearing en banc on polygraph testimony case
Summary of this case from Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp.Opinion
No. 79-5102.
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.
Judge Jerre S. Williams did not participate in this decision.
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.
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. 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.