Only two of Jones' claims merit any discussion: (1) his claim that the trial court, in excluding the proffered evidence, contravened his constitutional right of confrontation, and (2) his claim that Georgia's rape shield statute is invalid facially and as applied because it denies him and other similarly situated defendants the right to confront their accusers. We review the district court's denial of Jones' habeas petition de novo, see Nichols v. Butler, 917 F.2d 518, 520 (11th Cir. 1990), and reject Jones' first claim in part II.A. of this opinion and reject his second claim in part II.B. Jones' remaining claims are patently meritless.
The state appeals the district court's granting of habeas corpus relief to Buddy Nichols pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254. A panel of this court affirmed, Nichols v. Butler, 917 F.2d 518 (11th Cir. 1990), holding that Nichols' right to testify was violated by his attorney's threat to withdraw should Nichols insist on testifying, and that this violation was not harmless. Id. at 521.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, CLARK, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion November 20, 1990, 11th Cir., 1990, 917 F.2d 518) BY THE COURT:
It is a right that cannot be forfeited by counsel, but only by a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver by the defenant himself." Nichols v. Butler, 917 F.2d 518, 520-21 (11th Cir. 1990), aff'd on rehearing, 953 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1992) ( en banc). Rodgers has referenced a sworn affidavit given by his trial attorney which states as follows: