*3 CARNES, Before COX and began school she seeing high her school *, NOONAN Circuit Judges. counselors about the problems emotional * Jr., Noonan, disorder, Honorable John T. U.S. Circuit multiple disorder, personality post- Circuit, Judge for the sitting by Ninth desig disorder, traumatic stress mixed nation. (R.6-19 Resp. disorder anemia.” Ex. 15 1061.) 1. Dr. at primary diagnosis Connell's motion limine to was exclude multi- disorder, ple personality secondary Wendy with Hardee di- in a "while agnosis post-traumatic hypnotic stress disorder trance-like or state” asserted disorder, “probably dissociative Wendy "[d]efendant shows otherwise Hardee is a (R.7-19 specified.” Resp. 1115.) person Ex. 16 at multiple personalities.” (R.8-19 diagnosis Dr. Alderman's 2217.) Resp. "dissociative Ex. 21 at 2218). (R.8-19 Ex. 21 at Resp. at of law.”2 Although experiencing. had been she Dorsey testified was denied. The counsel- motion several involved her sessions
first having admitted to trial and his own one of meet with ors, began to soon she Hardee, but claimed Marilyn relations with sexual counselor This them alone. prose- consensual. she were Dorsey’s wife. Soon the relations Dorsey, James children, dissociative that Hardee’s argued often cution babysitting incapable of intelli- Dorsey home her rendered night at the disorder spending activity. home consenting to sexual Marilyn returned gently after James Following grad- her de- evening State elicited out. At trial from an school, activity moved two of the from high scribing the sexual uation they personalities, relocated and when Dorseys, several victim’s *4 town, with them. In order moved Wendy” she and “Trouble.” to a new “Little Dorseys for with the personalities, Hardee remained the alternate bring to out Hardee, in years. testifying five approximately asked prosecution the host state as her normal seeing psychi- began Eventually Hardee upsetting epi- Wendy,” to “Big recount was a worsen- what she felt about atrists recollections youth; these from her sodes meet- condition, therapeutic and her ing Dorsey’s Hardee to dissociate. caused concerning the brought revelations ings testimony of the objected to the counsel relationship with her nature sexual of to chose not and personalities, Ap- of Georgia Court Dorseys. As the in her dissociative Hardee cross-examine noted, peals guilty of Dorsey found all state. and psychologists her sessions [i]n twenty years and was sentenced counts Wendy as Little psychiatrists, [Hardee] imprisonment. (whom Lit- Dorsey Mrs. described how “Mommy”) talk affirmed Wendy Appeals would Georgia tle called Court of grand- sexually conviction, abusive at Dorsey, 426 S.E.2d Dorsey’s [Hardee’s about father, her that Paw- and tell Georgia Supreme Court de- “Pawpaw”] and the that he get her but of certiorari. coming for writ paw petition a nied his as she was a stay away long petition a for Dorsey would filed Id. at ac- Superior in forms of sexual in the engaging corpus various of habeas writ At some Dorsey.... Georgia. tivity with Follow- Dodge County, Mrs. Court Little (“Papa” to Dorsey hearing, the state habe- point evidentiary ing [James] occurring the activities and the Wendy) joined petition, as court denied oral, anal home, vaginal in his engaging denied subse- Supreme Court Georgia proba- sex with victim. for a certificate quent application peti- of his denial appeal ble cause State, Ga.App. Dorsey tion. 224, 226 S.E.2d re- sought post-conviction Dorsey next Dorsey indict- were
Marilyn and James court, petition se trial, filing proa federal his lief in Prior to and tried separately. ed to 28 U.S.C. pursuant relief (hereinafter “Dorsey”) James District Court Wendy in the United States moved to exclude A Georgia. District for the Northern in given a dissociative while trial, judge magistrate recommended a fair “rights of his as a violation court, denied, district be process petition of laws and due equal protection below, motion in His the Confrontation Clause. Dorsey now fully more discussed 2. As however, limine, process a due asserted argues dissociative that Hardee’s claim, Clause claim. but not a Confrontation Clause Due Process in of the violation adopting magistrate judge’s above, report and Dorsey argues that he in- received recommendation, petition. denied the effective assistance of trial counsel due to a proceed filed motion to in forma counsel’s impeach failure to Hardee with appeal on and for a certificate of pauperis prior statements, inconsistent failure to appealability, raising all of the issues he cross-examine Hardee in a while dissocia- had raised the district court. The dis- state, tive object and failure to to various granted trict court a appeala- certificate of statements prosecution’s made ex- bility following on the issues: whether perts relating to the victim’s her alter- Dorsey received ineffective assistance personalities’ nate credibility. Dorsey also counsel violation of the Sixth Amend- argues that his counsel’s failure to call an due to ment counsel’s failure to witness, a Kuglar, Dr. constituted impeach prior Hardee with inconsistent ineffective assistance of counsel. statements, failure to cross-examine Har- To prevail on an ineffective-as state, while dee dissociative failure to claim, sistance-of-counsel Dorsey must object to prose- various statements show that his counsel rendered deficient experts relating cution’s to Hardee’s and performance and that prejudiced he was personalities’ credibility, her alter and fail- *5 such that there ais probability reasonable to call an expert ure for witness the de- (2) errors, that but for his fense; counsel’s the result whether admission of the vic- of the proceeding testimony tim’s would have been differ while a dissociative state the ent. Washington, violated Confrontation Strickland v. Clause and ren- 687, fundamentally 668, 2052, dered the trial unfair in vio- 80 L.Ed.2d Clause; (1984). lation of the Due Process 674 Dorsey’s first two claims of Dorsey whether was to supple- entitled ineffective assistance of counsel concern ment the state Dorsey record.3 habeas his counsel’s treatment of Hardee while in appointed purposes was counsel for of this a Dorsey dissociative state. argues that appeal. prior three inconsistent statements should have been introduced to impeach the testi
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW mony of the alternate personalities; how We review de novo a district ever, noted, as the district court two of court’s denial of corpus relief. these statements were in fact used in the (11th Byrd Hasty, v. 142 F.3d impeachment of the host personality. Cir.1998). A district court’s factual find Furthermore, part as a of decision to ings in a habeas corpus proceeding are not cross-examine while she was reviewed for clear error. Id. state, a Dorsey’s in dissociative trial coun sel’s decision to not the alternate impeach III. DISCUSSION prior statements was Ineffective A. Assistance Counsel based strategic on a to participate refusal Dorsey raises three related in the trial court’s ineffective- decision to allow the assistance-of-counsel claims. As noted testimony. dissociative This trial tactic4 Also, Dorsey To the extent that 3. raises Dorsey’s supplement issues in his nied. motion to briefs not included in the district court’s cer the brief is denied. appealability, tificate of we decline to address States, Murray them. See v. United 145 F.3d The state habeas court's determination that (11th 1998). Cir. To the extent counsel's decision not cross-examine Har- to Dorsey's that inclusion of these issues is a dee while in a dissociative state was a tactical fact, expand renewal of his earlier question motion to the decision is a is accorded appealability, certificate of presumption motion is de- a correctness under 732, 737 135 F.3d Singletary, v. jury Snowden upon the impress to intended (11th Cir.1998), Dorsey has failed to show testi- of the dissociative untrustworthiness that but for exists probability a reasonable objection preserving mony while error, the result of counsel’s his trial personali- alternate of the to the been different. would have proceeding appeal.5 We of direct purposes for ties use subsequent counsel’s Defense that, given the district agree with expert the State’s statement discredit case, counsel’s nature of the unusual sup- witness, evidence coupled with other credibility of the challenge decision Dorsey testimony that porting ob- personalities’ ex- condition and knowledge of her had validity proceeding of the to the jecting it, a conclusion ploited countermands pat- was not refusing to cross-examine in the manner that prejudiced Dorsey was Kelly v. United ently unreasonable. See requires. See Cir.1987). standard (11th the Strickland States, 1173, 1176 820 F.2d (11th Head, 244 F.3d Parker Thus, determination that the state court’s Cir.2001). not result decisions did these of counsel receiving ineffective assistance Dorsey’s final ineffective assistance to, unreason- contrary nor an neither claim, failure his counsel’s concerning of, clearly established fed- application able witness for Kugler expert as an call Dr. 2254(d)(1), eral law. See U.S.C. defense, Dorsey’s trial fails. also evidentiary testified at the counsel that his trial Dorsey also contends Dorsey participated in hearing that object failing counsel ineffective Kugler, Dr. fact decision to call made the State’s various statements this is disputes. now Whether improp he claims witnesses which *6 not, to decision or his trial counsel’s case credibility. We erly Hardee’s bolstered so witness was not expert not call the court that two of with the district agree strategic a decision unreasonable patently rise to the level of do not these statements attorney would have competent no that credibility.6 The Hardee’s third bolstering F.2d at strategy. Kelly, chosen this 820 expert prosecution’s by the statement on cross-ex by Dorsey’s elicited counsel
amination,
response
negative
was a
to
and
Due
of Confrontation and
B. Violation
one of
asking
Hardee’s
whether
question
Process Clauses
a lie.
could tell
alternate
court,
this
briefing
bolstering
supplemental
testimony
While
the first
that
asserts for
time
the state
improper,
of a witness is
see
credibility
265,
322,
Zant,
1449,
(noting that
2254(e)(1).
274
405 S.E.2d
941 F.2d
§
Horton v.
engage
trial
(11th Cir.1991).
Dorsey
attorney cannot
in conduct or
Because
has
1462
complain
appeal).
procedure and
on
convincing
presented clear
evidence
not
finding,
presume
we
the state court’s
to rebut
Dorsey
are
statements
cites
6. The other two
to be correct.
Id.
it
testimony
not
that Hardee was
Dr. Connell's
fabricating
multiple personality disorder
probably
her
would not have
5. Cross-examination
Hardee had been
ability
argue
and his
that
technically
Dorsey’s
statement
affected
inappro-
of these statements
abused. Neither
error on
admission of the
that
credibility.
Hardee's
priately bolstered
Georgia
provides that cross-
appeal, as
law
was within
witness’s
of
former statement
not
waiver
does
constitute
examination
expertise,
did
§
and the latter statement
admissibility.
24-
area of
objection
See O.C.G.A.
person
was the
that
say
not indicate that
that cross examina-
But we can not
9-70.
her,
rela-
but concerned Hardee's
argument
had abused
would not have weakened
tion
grandfather.
tionship
Floyd,
Ga.App.
with her
appeal.
v.
See Fabe
on
Dorsey’s Confrontation Clause and Due
sion of Hardee’s dissociative testimony vio-
Process Clause claims have not been ex
lates the Confrontation and Due Process
However,
hausted.
in its answer to Dor Clauses of the federal Constitution.9 We
sey’s petition, the
turn
expressly
now to an exposition
state
declined
Dorsey’s
of
ar-
defense,
raise this
in
apparent
gument
and an analysis
belief
of the trial court
Dorsey’s
proceedings.
constitutional
claims were
on
raised
direct
appeal
his
con
state
Dorsey contends that
the introduction
(R.2-19
5.)
viction.
Although it would
of testimony by Hardee’s alternate per-
from a
appear
review of the record that
sonalities constituted a violation of his
present
did not
these claims either
Sixth
right
Amendment
of confrontation.
on direct
appeal
or
state habeas Dorsey argues that the two
per-
alternate
petition7 and his claims are therefore
sonalities
summoned during trial could
unexhausted,8
explicit
the state’s
waiver
provide
an accurate
complete
ac-
this defense before the district court fore
count of the sexual encounters between
it being
closes
asserted here. See Pen Dorsey
Hardee,
prosecu-
that the
nington
Spears,
1505,
v.
779 F.2d
1506 tor was either unable or unwilling
pro-
(11th Cir.1986);
2254(b)(3).
§
28 U.S.C.
It
duce
personalities.
other
In Dorsey’s
noting
bears
that as a result
pro
of these
view,
the inaccurate and incomplete na-
cedural developments, no Georgia court
ture
the dissociative testimony
ais
nec-
other than the
pre
has been
essary consequence of
disorder,
sented with Dorsey’s argument
that admis- which restricts each
conviction,
appeal
7. On direct
from his state
petitioner
faults the issue unless the
can show
Dorsey argued that admission of the Hardee’s
prejudice,
cause and
or
that a
show
denial of
testimony delivered in a dissociative
habeas relief would
miscarriage
result
"a
Georgia
statutory
contravention of
con-
law
Carr,
justice,"
Head v.
273 Ga.
witnesses,
cerning competency of
see O.C.G.A.
(Ga.2001)
S.E.2d
(citing O.C.G.A.
25-9-5(a),
§
Georgia
aswell
case
con-
law
14—48(d)).
Therefore
Confron
9—
cerning the admissibility
deliv-
tation and Due Process Clause claims are
See,
hypnosis.
ered under
e.g.,
Emmett
probably procedurally defaulted. ”[W]hen it
State,
232 Ga.
205 S.E.2d
is
obvious
the unexhausted claims would
*7
(1974), (holding
reliability
hypno-
that "the
procedurally
be
barred in state court due to a
sis has not been established and statements
default,
procedural
state-law
we ...
treat
made while [a]
[is]
witness
in a trance are
those
by
claims now
[pro
barred
state law as
inadmissible.”).
(R.8-19 Resp. Ex. 21 at
cedurally defaulted with] no basis for federal
2151.) Similarly,
Dorsey’s
the area of
habeas relief.”
Singletary,
Snowden v.
135
petition
that discusses Hardee’s disso-
732,
(11th Cir.1998)
F.3d
736
(citing Harris v.
testimony, Dorsey argues
ciative
that his
Reed,
255, 269,
1038,
489 U.S.
S.Ct.
109
counsel was ineffective because he
to
failed
1046-47,
(1989) (O’Connor,
to a 15, 22, Fensterer, recollec- v. unique these Delaware that gues because 292, 295, L.Ed.2d 15 within are cabined S.Ct. perspectives tions and only However, Clause personalities the Confrontation memory specific by the alters or effective by opportunity other an “guarantees not accessible to cross- opportunity cross-examination, personality, not cross-examination host ten alter- two of Hardee’s way, one or and to examine in whatever that is effective fragmentary personalities extent, nate and seven might wish.” the defense whatever opportuni- full and fair provide does not (emphasis Id. at S.Ct. credibility and Wendy Hardee’s ty to test original). Green, 399 v.
veracity. See California
Clause
Dorsey’s Confrontation
149, 158, U.S.
that he
cannot show
fails because he
claim
fur-
(discussing values
L.Ed.2d 489
fully
opportunity
deprived
Clause).
thered
Confrontation
In his ar
Wendy Hardee.
cross-examine
prose-
that at trial
Dorsey contends
that
Dorsey asks us to assume
gument,
inducing Har-
responsible for
cutor was
creates, and
disorder
multiple personality
state, compounding the
dee’s dissociative
compartmentalized
possessed,
dis-
already inherent in Hardee’s
problems
particular
specific
that are
memories
view,
this
testimony.
sociative
ac
memories that cannot be
personalities,
to control which
prosecutor
allowed the
byor
either the host
cessed
testified,
did not.
and which
personalities
personalities. Grant
the other alternate
personali-
that alternate
posits
also
this,
us to assume the
ing
he further asks
possess
at trial
testify
that did not
ties
personalities
existence of other
him,
argues
exculpates
that
knowledge
Wendy
system
existing within
control of the witness
prosecutor’s
that the
dis
identity,
possessed
personalities
fundamentally
proceeding
rendered
memories
perhaps exculpatory
tinct and
Process
in violation of the Due
unfair
other alternate
to the host or
unknown
Clause.
And
actually
testified.
personalities
Clause of the
The Confrontation
was not
finally, Dorsey contends that he
reliabili
guarantees the
Sixth Amendment
fair
to summon
given
opportunity
a full or
a criminal defen
ty
against
of “evidence
pur
for the
these alternate
rigorous testing
it to
by subjecting
dant
However,
pose of cross-examination.
adversary proceeding
of an
the context
premises,
granting
several
Maryland
of fact.”
before the trier
of the record reveals that
examination
836, 845, 110 S.Ct.
Craig, 497 U.S.
Dorsey’s ultimate contention is without
*8
Cross-ex
After the and the jury witness were under the circumstances that she’s been courtroom, removed from the placed under a trance .... up
court took issue of how defense THE COURT: The witness is available might proceed: counsel for cross-examination. THE COURT: ... I’m going to afford [DORSEY’S COUNSEL]: Under you the opportunity question the wit- state of the I record refuse to cross- long you ness as want and if you then a witness examine who’s placed been you’ve gone me indicate as far as thusly before me.... you think you ingo trying can bring THE COURT: ... any is there other personalities, out those you if choose to you cross-examination want conduct? attempt you’re make the not suc- [DORSEY’S COUNSEL]: Not while cessful, then I’m going turn it over to state, she’s in a dissociative your Honor prosecutor] [the to see if he can make please, produced. thus them available. (R.6-19 896.) Resp. Ex. 14 at [DORSEY’S I COUNSEL]: will not Following redirect, additional Dorsey’s participate any type of action that counsel once again offered oppor- would cause this witness to dissociate tunity Trouble, to cross-examine and once from her normal self as she has on been again refused. Hardee then dissociated the stand. into the personality Wendy, Little the wit- THE COURT: I’m offering you op- ness was Dorsey’s turned over to counsel portunity. If you decline it then we’ll cross-examination, Dorsey’s coun- simply move into fhrther questioning by again sel refused to cross-examine Hardee [the State]. (R.6-19 while in a dissociative state. [DORSEY’S COUNSEL]: And I will 907-08.) Resp. Ex. 14 at object further anyone else doing that. As record, is apparent from the the trial THE I COURT: your posi- understand gave court Dorsey’s opportuni- counsel the tion. ty to cross-examine the host personality as (R.6-19 892-93.) Resp. Ex. 14 at well as her alternate personalities. The The trial court then pros- instructed the offered option counsel *9 ecutor to attempt to make per- of attempting to per- summon alternate sonalities available cross-examination: himself, sonalities relying or of on the as-
THE ... [Dorsey’s COURT: counsel] sistance the prosecutor. of With the ex- has declined opportunity the ception examine of of the cross-examination host the witness try to bring out. her personality, opportunities each of these Now, you succeed, do, once if you in was refused. Dr. copy with a of state habeas record Clause his Confrontation
To make out
of his inef
support
Kuglar’s
the exis-
claim, Dorsey
us to assume
asks
Dor
of counsel claim.
fective assistance
testimony that
personalities
tence of
ta the state habeas
sey rested his case
elicit,
attempt to
or to
he declined even
any
evidentiary hearing
presenting
without
elicited, to
were
extent
the
what
concerning the content of
evidence
cross-examine,
that such
prove
in order to
testimony might have been.
Kuglar’s
Dr.
in the first
impossible
undertaking was
an
leave from
Dorsey subsequently requested
that a defen-
it is true
While
instance.
supplement
habeas court
the state
is violated
of confrontation
right
dant’s
Dr.
of
transcript
a
record with
areas
pursuing
from
prohibited
he is
when
Dorsey’s habeas
Marilyn
Kuglar offered
may
that
undermine
of cross-examination
request
the state court den
proceeding,
witness,
v.
credibility of the
Olden
Dorsey
develop
failed to
Because
ied.11
480,
227, 233, 109 S.Ct.
Kentucky, 488 U.S.
he had
of his claim when
the factual basis
(1988),
Dorsey
here
102 L.Ed.2d
pro
in his
opportunity
state
any line
pursuing
prohibited
not
satisfy
Dorsey must
the standard
ceeding,
not to.
strategically chose
inquiry,10
of
but
2254(e)(2).
§of
of
state court’s admission
Accordingly, the
rely on a new
Dorsey’s claim does not
testimony by Hardee while
a dissocia-
law,
rely
nor
it
of constitutional
does
rule
to,
contrary
nor an
tive state was neither
that could not have
predicate
on a factual
of, clearly estab-
application
unreasonable
through the ex-
previously been discovered
federal
law.
See 28 U.S.C.
lished
diligence, as the material was
ercise of due
2254(d)(1), (2);
Taylor,
§
Williams v.
Accordingly, Dor-
previously available.12
1495, 1523,
362, 413,
120 S.Ct.
U.S.
can
meet
standard
of
sey
not
(2000) (defining independent
L.Ed.2d 389
2254(e)(2). Dorsey
argues
§
that his
also
meanings
“contrary
to” and “unreason-
supple-
him to
actual innocence entitles
2254(d)).
§
application of’ clauses for
able
Kug-
Dr.
ment the state habeas record.
however,
prove
testimony,
could
lar’s
Rec-
Supplementation
C.
State Habeas
Dorsey
factually innocent. See
ord
States,
v.
523 U.S.
Bousley
United
1604, 1611,
claims that he
The state one with a anticipated accuser, whole Wendy Hardee, memory series different fragments seeming- would such offer ly conflicting testimony. opening
statement, prosecutor prepared the Just as an example, a kind of anal- jury come, members of the for what would ogy you is if person think of a as a sheet assuring them that the testimony would be glass or a mirror. If you drop that of a single witness: it, mirror and break up it breaks into a [Hardee] had and many has as lot of pieces, as ten little but it’s still one whole n
personalities. They names, have various mirror. That’s still one you’re mirror you may see personal- at, some of those looking though even it has lots of ities presented you little fragments. really And that’s what Wendy Hardee, Wendy one happens Har- person with memory dee, Wendy one who is nonethe- multiple personality disorder. All the
1192 generally is Confrontation Clause person “[T]he whole is still
memory and the
given
aren’t
is
a full
there,
just
fragments
that the
the defense
it’s
satisfied when
touching or
they’re not
together
probe
expose
and
opportunity
and fair
connected.
through cross-ex-
infirmities
[testimonial]
amination,
calling
the attention
thereby
during
his clinical
He further testified
giving
the reasons for
the factfinder
person-
“three of her
with Hardee
sessions
“Trouble,”
testimony.”
Wendy,”
weight to the witness’
alities”—“Little
scant
Fensterer,
15, 22,
him
acts
sexual
106
“Theresa” —described
474 U.S.
Delaware
Dor-
her and
place
(1985).
that had taken
between
292, L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
alternate
testified that the
sey. He also
a violation of the Confronta-
“state[ ]
To
“Missy”
“very connected
was
Clause,”
that he
Dorsey
“show[ ]
must
tion
Wendy that knows ev-
part of
with” “the
engaging
from
otherwise
prohibited
was
”
....
full recollection
erything, that has
....” Ol-
appropriate cross-examination
that four alter-
was
den,
at
480. “Pro-
488 U.S.
S.Ct.
Wendy,” “Trou-
nate
—“Little
by authority”
means
“to forbid
hibit”
both
ble,” “Theresa,”
“Missy”
pres-
—were
prevent,
or
to render
preclude
and “to
encounters with
during her sexual
ent
majority,
impossible.”
presuming
The
per-
Hardee testified as her host
Dorsey.
only
meaning,
the first
concludes
in a
sonality “Big Wendy” and
dissociative
Dorsey
prohibited
not
from cross-ex-
Wendy”
“Trouble.”
as “Little
and as
gave
trial court
amining his accuser: “the
testimony as “Theresa” or
gave
no
opportunity to cross-
Dorsey’s counsel the
“Missy.”
personality as well as
examine the host
Har-
to assume that
We are not asked
Because
personalities.”
her
memories, as
compartmentalized
dee had
Dorsey refused to cross-examine Hardee
position
That is the
majority
states.
state, Dorsey
“was
while
a dissociative
Similarly, we
prosecution.
taken
any line of
prohibited
pursuing
not
are not asked to assume the existence
strategically chose not
inquiry, but
to.”
Their exis-
personalities.
other alternate
majority sidesteps
The
the constitutional
for the
tence was testified to
into
the trial court ade-
inquiry
whether
are not asked to assume the
state. We
Dorsey’s rights se-
quately safeguarded
“Missy,” per-
of “Theresa” and
existence
by the
Clause. The
cured
Confrontation
the sexual
knowledgeable
sonalities
about
provide
court was to
challenge
testimony.
That
encounters.
is Hardee’s
for cross-examination to the
access
of the Sixth
The Confrontation Clause
up
that made
the whole of the wit-
parts
Amendment,
applicable
made
to the States
ness,
“a full and fair
so that he would have
Amendment, pro
through the Fourteenth
probe
expose
opportunity
[testimo-
criminal
prosecutions,
vides: “In all
memory.
infirmities” of Hardee’s
nial]
enjoy
right
...
to be
accused shall
Fensterer,
474 U.S.
against
confronted with the witnesses
“Lit-
The court’s solution was to insist that
Const,
him.” U.S.
amend. VI.
Con
formally
Wendy”
tle
and “Trouble”
be
is intended “to ensure
frontation Clause
for cross-examination.
made available
reliability
against
the evidence
fact,
prepared
to end
rig
it
by subjecting
criminal defendant
given
if
access to the
testing
orous
in the context of an adver
memory
of Hardee’s
called “Trouble.”
part
of fact.”
sary proceeding before the trier
845-46,
personalities,
two alternate
As to those
Craig,
Maryland v.
applica-
court’s insistence was a reasonable
ble”
examination. justice for the state travesty
It *13 a man on the testimo- Georgia to convict person. than one
ny of less HUBBARD, Allen,
Earnest Jesse al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
et Collins, Riley, Alberto
Charles Plaintiffs, al.,
et HALEY, Commissioner,
Michael W. al., Battles,
Martha et Defendants-
Appellees.
No. 99-6087. Appeals, Court of
United States
Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. Cooper,
Matthew McGuire Woods W. LLP, Charlottesville, VA, for Earnest Hubbard. Allen, Stevenson, AL, Brough-
Jesse Joe ton, Love, Lee, Ricky Frank Marvin G. Milner, Luckett, People, Roderick Mack Reese, Rowland, Johnny John Willie Al, Thornton, Vinson, Springville, Roderick pro se.