Personal injury Lawyer
Practice Areas: Personal Injury, Criminal Defense
OUTCOME: Victory
Secured an 8-1 victory at the Supreme Court of the United States in Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (2011), in which the Supreme Court of the United States adopted the proposed test for police created ... exigent circumstances set forth in Petitioner’s Merits Brief and Reply Brief.
OUTCOME: Victory
Certiorari Denied
OUTCOME: Victory
The Kentucky Court of Appeals held that the trial court acted within its discretion in revoking defendant's probation.
OUTCOME: Victory
The Kentucky Court of Appeals held that:(1) competency hearing to determine whether defendant was fit to stand trial was not warranted, and (2) defendant was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea.
OUTCOME: Victory
The Kentucky Supreme Court held that: (1) indictment did not create a new crime of “pattern of sexual abuse” in violation of separation of powers principles; (2) a defendant who is charged and convicte ... d of sexual crime that occurred during range of time cannot subsequently be charged with same against same person during period stated in original conviction; (3) instruction that jury's verdict “must be unanimous” was sufficiently precise, as defendant was not charged with the same offense several times; (4) fact that defendant was not a lawyer was not a proper basis for denying his request to cross-examine witnesses; (5) trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying untimely request to personally cross-examine two witnesses; (6) a defendant does not have a constitutional right to personally cross-examine the victim of his crimes; and (7) error in determining in presence of jury that examining physician and forensic biologist were experts was harmless.
OUTCOME: Victory
The Kentucky Court of Appeals held that: (1) rule on relief from judgment for any reason of an extraordinary nature did not apply to allow retroactive application of new rule for sentencing felonies co ... mmitted on parole; (2) defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion to correct his sentence; and (3) defendant was not entitled to additional findings of fact and conclusions of law on his motion.
OUTCOME: Victory
The Kentucky Supreme Court held that: (1) trial court's factual finding that officer asked for wife's consent to search was supported by substantial evidence; (2) wife voluntarily consented to warrantl ... ess search of the marital residence; (3) defendant did not effectively revoke or object to his wife's consent to police search of the marital residence; and (4) officer did not misrepresent the law in telling defendant that no warrant to search his residence was needed in light of his wife's voluntary consent to search.
OUTCOME: Victory
The Kentucky Supreme Court held that: (1) defendant's conviction for first-degree sodomy based on his conduct of performing oral sex on victim that occurred before sodomy statute went into effect was n ... ot palpable error; (2) defendant waived defect in indictment charging him with first-degree sodomy based on his conduct of performing oral sex on victim that occurred before sodomy statute went into effect; (3) indictment charging defendant with first-degree sodomy invoked trial court's jurisdiction, though conduct on which charge was based occurred before sodomy statute went into effect; (4) defendant was not denied a unanimous verdict due to similarity of instructions on each count of each offense; (5) sufficient evidence supported convictions for third-degree sodomy; (6) trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's request for a bill of particulars with respect to two of the five charged counts of sodomy, but denying request as to rest of the charged counts; and (7) defendant was not entitled to discovery of victim's medical records.
OUTCOME: Victory
The Kentucky Court of Appeals held that: (1) defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, and (2) any error by trial court in stating that defendant would not be able to appeal anyth ... ing at all, was harmless.
OUTCOME: Victory
The Kentucky Supreme Court held that: (1) evidence of defendant's prior acts of uncharged misconduct involving the sale of cocaine was highly prejudicial and should have been excluded; (2) defendant's ... failure to object to admission of testimony describing prior acts of uncharged misconduct rendered the issue subject to review for palpable error; (3) admission of evidence describing defendant's prior acts of uncharged misconduct was not palpable error; (4) presence of a single armed guard in close proximity to defendant throughout penalty phase of trial did not render defendant's trial unfair or interfere with due process; and (5) reference to most recent census indicating African Americans comprised 3.4 percent of district was not sufficient to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section of community requirement.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
