Opinion ID: 550707
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mitigating Evidence of Good Character--Ground H

Text: 29 At trial, counsel informed the state trial court that he planned to offer the testimony of a Mr. Coble that Byrd had been nominated for a good citizenship award in connection with assistance he had given the police in investigating a burglary. The court ruled that if the defense called Coble, the state would be allowed to cross-examine him about his knowledge of evidence of Byrd's bad character (such as Byrd's arrest records). As a result, defense counsel declined to call Coble as a witness. 30 In Ground H of his second petition, Byrd claimed that the trial court's ruling allowing cross-examination violated his right to present evidence of mitigating circumstances, because the ruling left him with a 'Hobson's choice' and constructively denied him the opportunity to present all mitigating evidence. Byrd v. Delo, 733 F.Supp. at 1338. 31 We initially rejected Byrd's argument because allowing impeachment of witnesses is simply not identical to exclusion of such witnesses. See Byrd v. Armontrout, 880 F.2d at 11. 32 Byrd now argues that if the prosecutor's impeachment of a character witness concerns matters beyond the proper scope of cross-examination, the defendant's right to introduce evidence of mitigating circumstances has been unconstitutionally chilled if the mitigating evidence was not introduced. Reply Brief of Appellant at 12-13 (hereinafter Reply Brief). 33 As noted above, reconsideration of repetitive claims is appropriate only where the petitioner has shown the existence of newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in the law, or some other persuasive reason for his or her failure to raise new arguments earlier. Instead, Byrd has merely restated arguments which have been made and rejected by this court and which were based on well-settled law. See Byrd v. Armontrout, 880 F.2d at 11; see also Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (jury must be allowed to consider mitigating circumstances). Thus, there is no reason why Byrd should be able to relitigate Ground H on the merits, and we accordingly affirm the district court's denial of that claim.