Court Opinion

ID: 9471476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:33:20.735525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:25.691124
License: Public Domain

ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Before RUBIN, TATE and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In chambers the state’s two witnesses — at least one of whom was a key witness — were examined at length. We express no opinion about whether the same result would be required if the court in chambers had heard only oral agrument on points of law. Judge Jolly, however, adheres to his prior dissent.
Treating the suggestion for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, it is ordered that the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. No member of the panel or Judge in regular active service of this court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35), the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.