Court Opinion

ID: 9464649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:39:01.584631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:44.565767
License: Public Domain

FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge,
statement on rehearing:
I, of course, was not entitled to vote upon the suggestion for rehearing en banc, but as a member of the panel I voted against rehearing. In doing so, I found it unnecessary to reach the issúes framed by Judge BUTZNER in his note of dissent since in my opinion there is no “reasonable likelihood [that the nondisclosure of information would] have affected the judgment of the jury.” Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 271, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 1178, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). This was the conclusion reached by both the state post-conviction judge and the district court and is solidly supported by the record.
The record shows, among other things, that the jury was made aware of the fact that Hood and Washington had received federal and state immunity and were the subjects of federal protective custody, and that they, together with their families, were receiving federal funds to cover their living expenses. In addition to these facts, trial counsel for the petitioners elicited upon cross-examination that both Hood and Washington had prior felony convictions; that they had lied on prior occasions to the authorities; and that parts of their previous statements were untrue. Based upon these admissions, defense counsel referred to them at various times as “hardened criminals”, “confirmed liars”, and “convicted criminals”. In the light of all of this derogatory information which the petitioners’ attorneys possessed and were able to place before the jury, I agree with the state judge that it would be unrealistic to suggest that the disclosure of this additional information would have influenced the jury to reach a different result in these cases.
Judge BRYAN and Judge WIDENER authorize me to say that they join in this statement.