need not be assessed under Brady. Strickler, 527 U.S. at 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936. Additionally, at oral argument Conley’s attorney conceded that because the district court determined that the Bullard and Brown evidence was not exculpatory, it was not part of Conley’s current Brady challenge. 16 . Indeed, Conley not only possessed evidence of Walker’s prior inconsistent statements and chose not to impeach Walker with them at trial, the record indicates that the defense actually objected to the government’s attempt to introduce Walker’s prior inconsistent statements. See Tr. II at 51-52. 17 . Conley has not shown how Walker's refusal to submit to a polygraph examination would have been admissible at trial. See deVries v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 716 F.2d 939, 945 (1st Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Aetna Ins. Co. v. Barnett Bros. Inc., 289
holding admissibility of polygraph evidence should be resolved under fedrevid 403 balancing test but reliability of polygraph test may be included to determine how probative particular polygraph test is holding that evidence that a polygraph test was offered to or refused by a defendant was not admissible holding that the defendants due process rights were violated by refusal to allow him to contact counsel after he was given misleading information on consequences of refusal to take bloodalcohol test recognizing and discussing difficulty in determining whether mistrial should be declared when error involves evidence that defendant refused to take polygraph exam rather than involving clearly inadmissible evidence regarding results of exam holding that evidence of a witnessess refusal to take a polygraph exam is inadmissible