Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree manslaughter, first-degree tampering with physical evidence, third-degree alcohol intoxication, and third-degree criminal trespass and was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions and corresponding sentence, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) failing to suppress statements obtained during an initial interrogation of Appellant at police headquarters; (2) failing to suppress subsequent incriminating statements made by Appellant during his hospitalization; (3) denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence of hair comparisons and taking judicial notice that hair comparison evidence is scientifically reliable; and (4) summarily imposing a consecutive six-month sentence for criminal contempt of court. View "Meskimen v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of attempted murder, first-degree assault, first-degree wanton endangerment, and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Appellant appealed, arguing that his convictions for both attempted murder and first-degree assault for the same shooting constituted a double jeopardy violation. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's conviction for first-degree assault and affirmed the remainder of his convictions, holding that, in light of the particular facts of this case, Appellant's convictions for attempted murder and first-degree assault, both offenses that arose out of a single course of conduct, resulted in a double jeopardy violation of Ky. Rev. Stat. 505.020. Remanded. View "Kiper v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

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