The man is obviously possessed by devils. Burn him at the stake. It's the only way to be sure.

Well I would want my equal rights protected also. I'm schizophrenic and so am I. Merry Christmas from the both of us.

The "Miranda" story is in a "News of the Weird" entry here:

http://www.metropulse.com/articles/2005/15_50/weird.shtml

I think MPD is bullshit. Anyway, Tenn. is notoriously f'd up when it comes to criminal law (yeah, that's right, glenn. you heard me.) The 6th Circuit COA is not so great either. However, I do have faith in the USSC to reverse this crap.

Ahhh, Miranda - another ruling brought to you by the leftists trying to hand-cuff a capitalist government.

Hey, okay by me.

While you're proceeding with the execution of the Miranda-ized personality, let "Kyle" the alter ego file for an appeal.

/King Solomon

"Daisy" helped me beat a parking ticket rap last year.

Just a quick off the cuff reaction, having not seen the actual appellate court decision, but it doesn't sound like the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have any business getting within 100 miles of this case. Murder charges are a matter of state law, and once the State Supreme Court weighs in, that's it, over, done, finis, that's the ruling, now deal with it. The U.S. Supreme Court won't even hear the case, let alone overturn it.

The story doesn't sound like anyone failed to Mirandize an alternate personality, either. It sounds like the guy invoked his right to counsel and police kept at him anyway, which is a major no-no and should invalidate his confession, if that's in fact how it happened. As to the lack of a good faith exception, it sounds like the state has decided that police should know the legal validity of the warrants they execute - in other words, they should know as much about search and seizure law as lawyers. Hopefully this means TN cops get paid as much (if not more, since they also run the risk of getting shot at.)

Seems to me either the sworn testimony had the facts wrong, OR they got the right guy but have to let him go based on the evidence being obtained improperly, but not both - someone who's got nothing to hide doesn't need to use an improper seizure defense to get off, and this have-it-both-ways-ism smacks overmuch of the cynical and rather brazen tactic employed by Tookie.

Every "multiple personality" case ever investigated has turned out to be a hoax. Everyone. "Sybil" - hoax. Any one you can think of -- hoax.

This is a made-for-bon-bon TV fantasy. It isn't a real phenomenon.

Just another example of "junk science" controlling the outcome of a court case. But all the lawyers in jail -- and all the expert witnesses in a mental institution.

The prosecution has the right to appeal an error in interpretation by a lower state court of federal case law, i.e., Miranda to a federal court.

All I can say is "Well played, Kyle. Well played, indeed."

Gib,
Although I suspect you may be right, wasn't Miranda a USSC decision? If so, and since it concerns his (or, rather, his) not being read his Miranda rights, doesn't this open the door for a clarification at the Supreme level?

Just askin'.

Whoa! It's not a confession by Husky. It's eyewitness testimony against Husky. If Kyle has to be treated as a seperate person and Mirandized, then Kyle can be a eyewitness against Husky. They aren't going after Kyle; they're going after Husky. Let Kyle skip. Put Husky in the electric chair.

The devil made me do it. Go arrest Satan.

That's fucking genius, rd. I like the way you think.

More stupid dim-bulb judges THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT

This is a made-for-bon-bon TV fantasy. It isn't a real phenomenon.

Exactly. "Multiple personalites" are created by crank psychologists. They don't exist.

Now, wait a minute. Everyone's upset that some moonbat judge makes up a new defense for the defense, changes the goalposts again (every 15 seconds, it seems like), probably can't read at the fifth grade level because of his fifth-rate education and maybe even a fifth in his pocket, and y'all think this is new?

I suggest that while the state ponders whether to reprosecute the gentleman in question, the judge be allowed to house this fine example of society's best, until the matter is settled or until he makes the judge and his family next on his serial list.

Eh.
Tennessee.
I believe it.
Kyle/Huskey's mother and father were brothers.

The people of Tennessee, fortunately, have recourse. This isn't the first capital case that cost a justice her job.

So if I'm reading this correctly, if my alter ego "Ace" tells my mom that it was him who ate the whole box of Krispy Kreme glazed donuts and drank that bottle of discount vodka, I'm off the hook?

First why won't your comments section hold my info? I'm fixed IP.

Second. I keep a copy of the constitution with me, an 8 1/2 X 11 copy, not one of those pissant 4X6" copies robert byrd obviously can't read, at all times that I'm willing to talk politics (in my car and by my computer) and I ain't read anything about the authorities of QUACKS having veto authority.

When did racists, cultural biggots, supporters of caste constants and the CREATORS of racial profiling, have a constitutional right to negate FACT?

That last sentence (I only say sentence, since there was only one final punctuation, forgive the rest of the grammar) are the tools of anyone who is a psychologist, and many psychiatrists. Why is it okay to generalize, profile, and negate the choices of an individual, as long as you are a, either, wealthy, or moderately wealthy (those who testify tend to be wealthy) bigot?

This is the ONLY thing L.Ron had right.

This will be on Law and Order next season. Hell, it writes itself.

Kind of reminds me of the TWINKIES DEFENSE

For the curious, the case is State v. Huskey, 2005 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 543 (June 1, 2005). The more recent decision was the Tennessee Supreme Court refusing to hear the case.

You (and everyone in there with you) have the right to remain silent.
Anything you (and everyone in there with you) say can and will be used against you (and everyone in there with you)
You (and everyone in there with you) have the right to speak to an attorney.
Hmmmm.
This is where we get stuck! Does each personality get its own attorney?

OK, I read State v. Huskey. My take: call off the dogs.

There are a lot of bases upon which to criticize the decision (and the underlying caselaw), but it's not nearly as stupid as the articles made it seem. Huskey's confession got thrown out because about two weeks before he confessed, he said he wouldn't answer any more questions without a lawyer. The trial court thought that the cops wore down Huskey's resistance to interrogation over the next two weeks, and the appellate court didn't think that conclusion was outrageous enough to overturn.

In short, the problem isn't that the cops didn't Mirandize all of Huskey's multiple personalities; it's that Huskey invoked his Miranda rights, but the cops didn't take "No" for an answer.

As for Supreme Court review: the U.S. Supreme Court can review a decision based on the federal Constitution, but not one where there's an independent state constitutional reason for the decision. The physical evidence against Huskey was thrown out on the basis of the Tennessee Constitution, so the U.S. Supreme Court can't overturn it. From my very cursory examination, it looks like the confessions were thrown out on federal constitutional grounds, so the U.S. Supreme Court could review it. I'd be surprised, though, because the law here is reasonably well-settled.

Well, Gib, if "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", can be pointed at the people who are supposed to obey the law, why can't it be pointed at the cops who are supposed to know the laws they are enforcing?

And, if there is a problem with the search warrent, why didn't the DA spot it before he handed it to the cops?

And, if there is a problem with the search warrent, why didn't the DA spot it before he handed it to the cops?

In many jurisdictions, the DA isn't involved in search-warrant applications. The police officer in charge of the investigation fills out a form, gives it to his supervisor for approval, and it's sent to the magistrate on duty. Prosecutor's offices are usually too short-staffed to review these applications, particularly when you consider that there's not a lot the prosecutor can do with it -- either the officer's affidavit is enough to establish probable cause, or it's not. It's not like the prosecutor can take an insufficient warrant application and write in, "Oh, yeah, and I personally witnessed the suspect eat a puppy."

Well, Gib, if "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", can be pointed at the people who are supposed to obey the law, why can't it be pointed at the cops who are supposed to know the laws they are enforcing?

Phillep - it can, and in Tennessee, it apparently is. Their call, and hey, I live in Georgia, so no quarrel from me. Many states have good faith exceptions because the goal of search and seizure laws is to protect suspects, whether innocent or guilty, from arbitrary, capricious, or vindictive searches. If a police officer is acting in good faith, and honestly (if ultimately incorrectly) believes his warrant to be valid, and his search gets tossed anyway, it benefits no one, since there was no abuse of process, only an honest mistake. Oh, yeah, it also potentially results in the release of someone who may be harmful to society. If the purpose of criminal justice system is to protect suspects from abusive law enforcement while at the same time striving to protect the public from criminals, a good faith exception for police makes sense.

If the purpose of the criminal justice system is to see if the cop deserves a cookie (conviction of his suspect), then no, you shouldn't have good faith exceptions.

Like I said, Tennessee's call. For what it's worth, I agree with pretty much everything Pompous has said.