## Facts

- Julio Piccinonna worked in South Florida’s waste-disposal industry for over twenty-five years.
- A federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida investigated alleged antitrust conduct among waste-disposal firms, including agreements not to compete for customers and to compensate firms when accounts were taken.
- Piccinonna testified before the grand jury under immunity that did not protect against perjury and denied knowledge of any such agreements.
- Other witnesses gave testimony implicating Piccinonna in the alleged scheme.
- Piccinonna was indicted for making false material declarations to the grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 and was convicted on two counts.
- Before trial, Piccinonna sought to introduce polygraph results and expert testimony to support his credibility, but the district court excluded the evidence under circuit precedent imposing a categorical bar on polygraph evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit’s categorical exclusion of polygraph evidence should be modified under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
2. Whether the district court erred by excluding Piccinonna’s polygraph evidence solely under the per se exclusion rule.

## Decision

- The en banc court abandoned the per se rule excluding all polygraph evidence.
- The court held that polygraph evidence may be admissible only in limited circumstances:
  - when the parties stipulate in advance to its admissibility and scope; or
  - to impeach or corroborate a witness’s testimony, if the proponent provides notice and the opponent has a reasonable opportunity to conduct its own polygraph examination on substantially the same questions.
- The court vacated Piccinonna’s conviction and remanded for the district court to reconsider admissibility under the newly announced standards.
- A partial concurrence/dissent would have permitted admission only by stipulation and rejected broader acceptance of polygraph-based testimony.

## Legal Principles

- Polygraph evidence is not automatically inadmissible; admissibility is governed by ordinary evidentiary principles, including relevance, reliability, and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 balancing.
- Polygraph evidence may be admitted by advance stipulation of the parties defining admissibility conditions and scope.
- Polygraph evidence may be admitted for impeachment or corroboration only if:
  - the opposing party receives adequate notice of the intent to use the evidence; and
  - the opposing party is given a reasonable opportunity to administer its own examination on substantially the same questions.
- Even within these exceptions, the trial court retains broad discretion to exclude polygraph evidence based on the examiner’s qualifications, the manner of administration, the propriety and relevance of questioning, and risks of unfair prejudice or confusion.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit replaced its categorical exclusion of polygraph evidence with a narrow, rule-based approach permitting admission only by advance stipulation or, with procedural safeguards, for impeachment or corroboration, while leaving trial courts substantial discretion under the Federal Rules of Evidence to exclude unreliable or unfairly prejudicial polygraph proof.


United States v. Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989) (en banc)