Com. of Ky. v. Cambron
546 S.W.3d 556
Ky. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Joseph Cambron, represented by the Louisville Metro Public Defender (OLMPD), indicted for murder and tampering; confessed and awaits trial.
- Over a 13-month period, the Jefferson Circuit Court entered more than 30 sealed ex parte orders (29 by oral request) directing third parties to produce certified records to the OLMPD mitigation coordinator, without notifying the Commonwealth.
- One order was sent to Louisville Metro Police Department Crimes Against Children Unit (CACU); CACU alerted the Commonwealth instead of complying, prompting the Commonwealth to move to quash and seek disclosure of other sealed documents.
- The trial court denied the Commonwealth’s motion to quash, justifying secret ex parte orders as expediting defense access to records and protecting the defendant’s silence and defense strategy.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it found the practice violated court rules and judicial canons (prohibiting ex parte communications except in narrow circumstances), lacked required motions/notice, and improperly deprived the Commonwealth of opportunity to be heard.
- The appellate court directed unsealing and remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion; emphasized appropriate alternatives (public motion, subpoenas with in camera review, open-records requests).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Cambron) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly denied Commonwealth's motion to quash sealed ex parte orders for third-party records | Ex parte orders were improper because defense failed to follow procedural rules; Commonwealth entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard | Secret ex parte orders were necessary to obtain records without revealing defense strategy and to protect defendant's silence | Reversed — trial court abused discretion; ex parte orders unauthorized here and violated rules/canon |
| Whether constitutional rights (Fifth, Sixth, Fourteenth) authorize secret ex parte judicial assistance to procure records | N/A (government argued procedure impermissible) | Defendant argued constitutional rights justify sealed ex parte assistance to obtain records without notice | Rejected — no constitutional right to secret judicially aided discovery; Brady/compulsory process do not authorize such procedure |
| Whether CR/RCr/Canon permit repeated oral sealed ex parte orders without written motions or proof of service | Commonwealth argued such practice contravenes CR 5.01/5.03, CR 7.02, RCr rules, and Canon 3(B)(7) | Defense contended expediency and mitigation needs justified ex parte process | Held — violated multiple procedural rules and Canon 3(B)(7); only narrow exceptions for ex parte communications exist and were not met |
| Whether in-camera review or other alternatives were required/available instead of sealed direct production to defense | Commonwealth urged use of standard avenues or in-camera production so prosecution could be notified or challenge | Defense maintained secrecy necessary to avoid revealing strategy and repeated delays would impede defense preparation | Court favored alternatives (written motion, subpoena with delivery to court, in-camera review, open-records requests) and found defense failed to attempt less drastic means |
Key Cases Cited
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington v. Noble, 92 S.W.3d 724 (Ky. 2002) (standards for sealing court records and requirement to analyze sealed documents)
- Courier-Journal, Inc. v. McDonald-Burkman, 298 S.W.3d 846 (Ky. 2009) (sealing and public-access principles)
- Commonwealth v. House, 295 S.W.3d 825 (Ky. 2009) (procedural standards for judicial orders and criminal practice rules)
- Porter v. Commonwealth, 394 S.W.3d 382 (Ky. 2011) (no general constitutional right to discovery; limits on discovery under due process)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutorial disclosure rule creates duty, not a broad discovery right)
- Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 (1973) (discovery must be reciprocal)
- Megibow v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 173 S.W.3d 618 (Ky. 2005) (discipline for improper use of subpoenas contrary to procedural rules)
- United States v. Tomison, 969 F. Supp. 587 (E.D. Cal. 1997) (district court discussion of ex parte subpoenas under Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c), acknowledged as a minority view)