Jordan v. Hargett
This text of 53 F.3d 94 (Jordan v. Hargett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The panel ordered this ease remanded to the district judge to conduct his own eviden-tiary hearing before rejecting the magistrate judge’s findings on the credibility of the witnesses. Jordan v. Hargett, 34 F.3d 310 (5th Cir.1994). Since vacating the panel opinion, the en banc court is informed that the attorney who defended Jordan in the state trial [95]*95but did not testify at the magistrate judge’s hearing has now been located and is prepared to contribute his testimony on the question of whether the defendant acceded to the attorney’s advice in not testifying. Because of the uncertainty of what may ultimately be determined to be the facts underlying the questions raised in this case, we conclude that we need not decide the questions of constitutional law discussed in the panel opinion. The panel opinion remains vacated. We remand to the district court for further proceedings.
Judgment of the District Court is VACATED and Case REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
53 F.3d 94, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10898, 1995 WL 293042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-v-hargett-ca5-1995.