District Attorney. Judge Colton also disallowed Wardie Parks, a member of the 1982 jury who has since renounced his verdict, to speak as a witness of new evidence. On January 7, 2002, Judge Colton ruled against Workman, stating that the "new evidence presented by lawyers for death row inmate Philip Workman is insufficient to warrant a new trial." Judge Colton found that Harold Davis' statements "[did] not amount to a recantation of his original trial testimony," "were neither clear nor persuasive," and that "[t]he only definitive statement made by Harold Davis was that he did not clearly remember the events surrounding the death of Lieutenant Ronald Oliver." With regard to the new ballistics information, Judge Colton found that "the jury essentially heard, through the testimony of [F.B.I.] Agent [Gerald] Wilkes, the same information provided by Dr. Wecht." Judge Colton noted that, while Dr. Wecht opined that the .45 caliber bullet fired from Workman's gun and recovered from the scene was not the bullet that killed Lieutenant Oliver and that it was unlikely that a .45 caliber aluminum-jacketed bullet would create an entrance wound considerably larger than the exit wound, he also admitted that "he could not conclusively exclude the possibility that a .45 caliber bullet caused the fatal wound," and "that it was possible for a .45 caliber, hollow-point bullet to create a smaller exit than entrance wound." Judge Colton found "no testimony, including that of Dr. Wecht, which affirmatively rules out the possibility that one of the other three to five bullets shot by Workman caused the fatal injuries," and that "the jury would have still heard the defendant's admission that he fired his weapon and that he indeed pointed the weapon at the victim." Final days On Friday, May 4, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit refused, by a two-to-one decision, to grant a stay of execution for Workman. The stay had been requested on the grounds that "the Attorney General for the State of Tennessee . . . perpetrated a fraud upon the district court during Workman's habeas corpus proceedings". The majority opinion found that "On this record, Workman has not met his burden of showing a likelihood of success in demonstrating that the district court abused its discretion. Nearly twenty-five years after Workman's capital sentence and five stays of execution later, both the state and the public have an interest in finality