Court Opinion

ID: 9471010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:23:19.230916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:14.155810
License: Public Domain

RONEY, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring.
Since I am not prepared to agree that this Court’s decision in Goode v. Wainwright, 704 F.2d 593 (11th Cir.1983) retains its viability in light of Stephens v. Zant, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983), and Barclay v. Florida,- U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3418, 77 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1983), I concur only in the result reached by the Court. Since this case is distinguishable from Goode, it matters not to this decision how these Supreme Court decisions may have detracted from the Goode analysis.
Although I doubt the soundness of the analysis which leads to the reversal under Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), I recognize the Court’s attempt to faithfully follow the decisions in this Circuit which, although questionable, guide that analysis and I therefore do not dissent.