Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of use of a minor under the age of sixteen in a sexual performance and six counts of use of a minor under the age of eighteen in a sexual performance. Appellant was sentenced to a total of twenty-five years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court (1) reversed Appellant's conviction and sentence for use of a minor under the age of eighteen in a sexual performance as to one of the victims, holding that the jury instruction as to that charge and victim violated Appellant's right to a unanimous verdict; and (2) affirmed the remainder of Appellant's convictions and sentences, holding that the trial court properly denied Appellant's motion for a mistrial. Remanded. View "Kingrey v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the murder and first-degree criminal abuse of her two-year-old son. The Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction but reversed the abuse conviction, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion for a directed verdict on the abuse conviction; (2) the trial court did not commit reversible error in playing a recorded interview in which a police detective accused the Appellant of not telling the truth nor in allowing that detective to testify that Appellant's story was inconsistent with other testimony; but (3) the jury's verdict as to first-degree criminal abuse deprived Appellant of her right to a unanimous jury verdict. View "Johnson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellants were convicted of a 1992 murder based on highly circumstantial evidence. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment. Now represented by The Innocence Project, Appellant sought the release of certain physical evidence recovered from the crime scene - namely, unidentified hairs found in the victim's hand - for DNA testing. The circuit court denied Appellants' request to release the evidence for DNA testing, finding that the evidence would not likely change the outcome of the trial with a reasonable certainty. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellants' motion because Appellants had shown the DNA testing might lead to the prosecution and conviction of a person heretofore uncharged and now at large. View "Hardin v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree unlawful transaction with a minor in violation of Ky. Rev. Stat. 530.064(1) and sentenced to ten years in prison. The convictions stemmed from Defendant's inducement of the fourteen-year-old daughter of a recently deceased family friend to have sexual intercourse with him. Defendant appealed, arguing that section 530.064 does not apply unless the perpetrator induces the minor to commit a crime. Defendant contended that because the minor involved here was allegedly induced to submit to a crime but not to commit one, Defendant was entitled to a directed verdict on the section 530.064 charge. The court of appeals panel agreed with Defendant's reading of section 530.064 but affirmed his conviction pursuant to Young v. Commonwealth, in which the Supreme Court rejected a claim similar but not identical to Defendant's. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to a dismissal of the charge of unlawful transaction with a minor because section 530.064 is not limited to instances where the defendant has induced a minor to commit a crime but applies as well to inducements to engage in sexual activity made illegal by the minor's incapacity to consent to it. View "Hale v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree riot and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO) and sentenced to twenty years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentence, holding that the trial court (1) did not violate Appellant's due process rights by replaying witness testimony during the jury's deliberations in Appellant's absence; (2) did not violate Appellant's right to conflict-free counsel by permitting Department of Public Advocacy Attorneys to engage in multiple representation of him and other defendants involved in the same events; (3) did not violate Appellant's speedy trial rights; and (4) did not deny Appellant a fair trial by permitting four of Appellant's witnesses to testify in shackles and prison garb. View "Stacy v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of sodomy against his step-daughter. Defendant appealed, claiming that he was entitled to a mistrial for an alleged Brady violation and that the trial court erred in excusing a juror. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in denying a mistrial, as the prosecution did not violate Defendant's due process rights by failing to disclose material evidence to the defense in violation of Brady; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in designating the questionable juror as an alternate and excusing him from deliberating in the case. View "Nunley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a Walgreens Pharmacy and requested Oxycontin. The pharmacist alleged Appellant told him he had a gun. The police subsequently apprehended Appellant, whom they discovered to be highly impaired. A jury subsequently found Appellant guilty of burglary in the first degree. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant appealed, arguing that he was entitled to a direct verdict of acquittal because the Commonwealth failed to prove he remained unlawfully in the Walgreens Pharmacy. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a judgment of not guilty to be entered, holding that the Commonwealth failed to prove the necessary elements of burglary, as Appellant's license to remain in the pharmacy was not explicitly or implicitly revoked the evening of the events at issue. View "Lewis v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of murder and one count of first-degree arson. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions, vacated his sentence, and remanded the matter for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court committed reversible error in denying Defendant's motion to designate a particular juror as an alternate, thus effectively failing to remove the juror from the panel, because the court failed to properly determine whether the juror was, in fact, impartial; and (2) the error was not harmless. View "Jackson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance. The jury that found Defendant guilty of the offense had only eleven members because one of the jurors had broken her ankle during an overnight recess. The court of appeals and remanded for a hearing on whether Defendant had waived his right to a twelve-person jury. The Supreme Court affirmed and declared that Defendant's conviction by a facially unconstitutional jury must be vacated, as (1) a twelve-person jury is a fundamental right in the Commonwealth, and any waiver of that right must be knowingly and voluntarily made by the defendant personally, not by his counsel unilaterally; and (2) where, as in this case, counsel has stipulated to proceeding with less than twelve jurors and the defendant has seemingly acquiesced, the trial should conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if defendant knowingly and voluntarily consented to that decision. The Court directed that if, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court finds that Defendant validly waived his right to a twelve-person jury, the judgment of conviction shall be reinstated. Otherwise, the judgment shall stand reversed, with Defendant subject to retrial. View "Commonwealth v. Simmons" on Justia Law

Without a search warrant, police walked onto Appellee's property and into an area near his home late at night to search trash in closed trash containers that had not been put out on the street for trash collection. The containers ended up containing evidence of drug trafficking. The trial court denied suppression of the evidence, concluding that Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the trash cans or their contents. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to all the charges, reserving his right to appeal the suppression question. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Defendant had a constitutionally recognized expectation of privacy in his trash at the time of the searches that required suppression of the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the police retrieved Defendant's trash from the curtilage of his home without a search warrant, the search violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, and Defendant was entitled to have the evidence obtained suppressed. View "Commonwealth v. Ousley" on Justia Law