Warren Eugene Bridge v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent
Opinion
ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC
We have rejected Bridge’s claims for a writ of habeas corpus. We were persuaded in the late hour that in fairness we ought to rest our decision there. We remain convinced that we were correct in our original decision, but with the fullness of time, we are now persuaded that our denial should rest on the absence of legal cause for Bridge’s failure to raise the “Franklin” issue at trial. See Franklin v. Lynaugh, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 221, 98 L.Ed.2d 180 (1987); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). Selvage v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 89 (5th Cir.1988). To the extent they are contrary, our earlier writings are withdrawn.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
863 F.2d 370 (Warren Eugene Bridge v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.