Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State of Tennessee v. Dwight Miller - Dissenting
Citation: Not availableDocket: W2011-00447-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; January 27, 2013; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Dissenting opinion by Judge Thomas T. Woodall in the case of State of Tennessee v. Dwight Miller contests the majority's interpretation of the previous ruling, Miller I. Woodall emphasizes that the conviction was reversed not merely due to the trial court's admonishment of witness Katherine Blackwell, but because the court's coercive actions—including ordering her incarceration until she testified as the court desired—constituted reversible error. The dissent highlights the trial judge's inappropriate order to the witness regarding her memory and the implications of that order, asserting it compromised the integrity of the judicial process. Woodall outlines proper procedural methods for addressing uncooperative witnesses, referencing Tennessee Rules of Evidence that allow for declaring a witness hostile or admitting prior inconsistent statements. The opinion stresses that while a court may caution a witness about the consequences of lying under oath, it must not imply disbelief in a manner that pressures the witness to alter their testimony, which happened in this case. The dissent concludes that the entire process was prejudicial to the judicial system, asserting that the jury's ignorance of the witness's coercive treatment in the first trial does not mitigate the inherent prejudice. Woodall calls for a reversal and remand for a new trial, excluding Blackwell's testimony from the first trial due to its inadmissibility resulting from the trial judge's improper conduct.