# In re Byrd

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · September 21, 2001 · 269 F.3d 561

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7006750

## Case

- **Full name:** In re John W. BYRD, Jr., Movant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 21, 2001
- **Citations:** 269 F.3d 561; 2001 WL 1230313
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Jones
- **Judges:** Batchelder, Jones, Suhrheinrich
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7006750

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding petitioner did not satisfy the miscarriage-of-justice exception necessary to reach the merits of a successive habeas petition where the evidence of actual innocence was an affidavit from a codefendant which was made six years after the codefendant had been convicted an…
- holding that petitioner’s “renewed attacks on [a] trial witness[’s] . . . credibility . . . do not provide proof of ‘actual innocence’ sufficient to excuse an abuse of the writ
- holding that petitioner’s “renewed attacks on [a] trial witness [‘s] ... credibility ... do not provide proof of ‘actual innocence’”
- finding that an attack on a trial witness’s credibility did not provide proof of actual innocence

## Opinion text

NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I am convinced beyond doubt, that this court must carefully explore whether Byrd can satisfy the legal standard that would *578 entitle him to file a second habeas petition. The complexity of the issues raised by the petitioner are of such scope and magnitude as to demand a careful and exhaustive analysis. I believe that the petition squarely implicates a question of fundamental fairness. Thus, a stay of execution is imperative. Byrd should not be put to death before this court is able to give full consideration to the issues raised in his case. Steffen v. Tate, 39 F.3d 622, 625 (6th Cir.1994).
I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7006750. Public record. Not legal advice.