Court Opinion

ID: 9631917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:55:36.392493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:01.946621
License: Public Domain

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
I agree with Judge Moore that rehearing en banc was improvidently granted in this case and, for that reason, I would vacate the order granting rehearing and reinstate the panel opinion. The disposi-tive question in this section 2241 matter boils down to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence presented on the petitioner’s behalf in district court and, therefore, fails to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a).
That said, however, because the panel opinion has been vacated by order of a majority of the court, it becomes necessary to redetermine the principal issue raised on appeal. On that score, I would vote in conformity with the majority’s analysis of the facts and hold that the evidence fails to establish the existence of a tacit agreement between the state prosecutor, Miller, and the state’s witness, Davenport.