Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of robbery in the first degree and of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree for robbing a cashier clerk at a convenience store at knifepoint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by allowing three witnesses to identify Appellant as the perpetrator on the store surveillance video and in still shot photos; (2) did not err or violate Appellant’s due process rights by denying Appellant’s motion for a continuance of trial; and (3) did not err by denying Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. View "Morgan v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree manslaughter, tampering with physical evidence, alcohol intoxication, and criminal trespass. For his crimes, Appellant received a twenty-five-year prison sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction and corresponding sentence, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) denying Appellant’s motion to suppress statements he made during his interrogation at police headquarters; (2) failing to suppress the evidence of subsequent statements made during Appellant’s hospitalization; (3) denying Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence of hair comparisons; and (4) finding Appellant in criminal contempt of court. View "Meskimen v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to manufacturing methamphetamine and second-degree persistent felony offender status. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the drug-related evidence seized by a state police officer and a parole officer during a warrantless search of his residence while he was a parolee. Specifically, Appellant argued that the warrantless search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the parole officers did not have reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress, holding that because the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee, Appellant had no basis for application of the exclusionary rule. View "Bratcher v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance and carrying a concealed deadly weapon. Appellant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized upon his arrest. The circuit court and court of appeals both affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress, holding that police officers’ search and ultimate seizure of a gun and controlled substances found on Appellant’s person was supported by sufficient cause and thus was a valid search incident to arrest. View "Vega v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of robbery, burglary, unlawful imprisonment, receiving stolen property, and being a persistent felony offender (PFO). Appellant was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding (1) the trial court erred when it misinformed Appellant that he could not proceed to trial with a hybrid form of representation and therefore denied Appellant his right to represent himself for one pretrial motion while still retaining the services of counsel for the remainder of the proceedings; and (2) because the trial judge misstated the law, reversal and a new trial were necessary. View "Mitchell v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to several crimes, including capital murder. The circuit court sentenced Appellant to death for his six capital crimes and to life imprisonment for rape, kidnapping, and arson. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that (1) the trial court properly accepted Appellant’s guilty plea; (2) playing Appellant’s videotaped guilty plea colloquy for the jury did not constitute reversible error; (3) the trial court properly denied Appellant’s guilty but mentally ill plea; (4) the jury was properly selected; (5) the trial judge did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to exclude certain photographs; (6) the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officers and properly permitted the jury to watch his videotaped statement; (7) the jury instructions did not deny Appellant due process or reliable sentencing; and (8) Appellant’s sentences were constitutional, and his death sentences were not arbitrary and disproportionate. View "Dunlap v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellee was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, fleeing or evading police, and being a persistent felony offender. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. Appellee subsequently filed a Ky. R. Crim. P. 11.42 motion seeking relief from the judgment by alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Appellee was not prejudiced by counsel’s alleged errors. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing, concluding that Appellee’s allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were not clearly refuted by the record. The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s order, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Appellee’s Rule 11.42 motion without an evidentiary hearing because a hearing was not necessary to determine that Appellee was not prejudiced by any errors of trial counsel regardless of whether those errors amounted to unprofessional performance. View "Commonwealth v. Searight" on Justia Law

Appellee, an experienced criminal attorney, was indicted on five counts of failure to file Kentucky tax returns for the tax years 2002 through 2006. Appellee proceeded pro se until a day before the jury trial was scheduled to begin, at which point Appellees requested a continuance for the purpose of possibly retaining private counsel. The trial court overruled the motion for a continuance. At no stage during the proceedings did the court conduct a Faretta hearing. Appellee was subsequently found guilty of five counts of failing to file a state tax return. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the judgment of the circuit court, holding that criminal defendants who are experienced criminal trial attorneys are not entitled to a Faretta hearing or inquiry prior to representing themselves. View "Commonwealth v. Ayers" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of intentional murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when it (1) denied her motion to suppress statements she gave to police after a polygraph examination because she did not knowingly and voluntarily waive her Miranda rights, and (2) failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of first-degree manslaughter. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) the trial court did not err in admitting Appellant's statements given to the police because, under the totality of the circumstances, nothing showed that Appellant did not knowingly and voluntarily waive her rights as to her post-polygraph interview with police; and (2) Appellant's argument that the trial court failed to give an instruction on first-degree manslaughter was not properly preserved and not subject to palpable-error review. View "Wise v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree assault and of being a second-degree persistent felony offender. The Supreme Court affirmed one of Appellant's convictions for first-degree assault, reversed the other conviction, and remanded, holding (1) the trial court did not commit reversible error by failing to strike three prospective jurors for cause, failing to provide limiting instructions, or allowing a fact witness to present an expert opinion; (2) the Commonwealth's question to Appellant was to whether it was lawful for him to possess a firearm was not reversible error; but (3) the Commonwealth's proof did not support a conviction for one of the first-degree assault convictions. View "McDaniel v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law