Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Jeffrey Dewayne Clark
528 S.W.3d 342
| Ky. | 2017Background
- In 1992 Rhonda Warford was murdered; Jeffrey Clark and Garr Hardin were convicted at trial largely on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Physical evidence at trial tied the defendants to the victim only tenuously: a fingerprint of the victim in Clark’s car and a hair on the victim’s sweatpants that an expert testified was similar to Hardin’s.
- In 2009 the Innocence Project obtained post-conviction testing of preserved evidence; modern DNA testing later excluded Appellees as the source of the hair and matched blood on a rag to Hardin.
- Additional newly discovered information called into question the credibility of Detective Mark Handy, who had testified about Hardin’s alleged escalation from animal to human sacrifices; Handy was implicated in false testimony in an unrelated case.
- The trial court granted a CR 60.02 motion, vacated the convictions, and ordered a new trial; the Commonwealth appealed and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the grant of a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Clark/Hardin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered forensic DNA evidence warrants a new trial | Trial evidence (hair, rag, detective testimony, confessions) still sufficient; parole-board admissions show guilt | DNA excludes defendants as hair source; DNA links rag to Hardin; detective’s credibility undermined; evidence likely would change verdict | Court: New DNA and credibility issues sufficiently undermine the original verdict; new trial affirmed |
| Standard of review for new-trial motion based on new evidence | Trial judge abused discretion only if decision arbitrary or unsupported | Deferential review but new evidence must be decisive or likely to change result | Court: Trial judge did not abuse discretion under abuse-of-discretion standard for new trial |
| Weight of post-conviction admissions (Parole Board confessions) | Admissions demonstrate guilt and negate need for retrial | Admissions may be coerced/incentivized by parole process and are unreliable | Court: Allowed trial court to discount parole admissions; admissibility and weight to be decided at retrial |
| Practical concerns about retrial (witness availability, prejudice) | Retrial would be difficult and prejudicial; undermines finality | Practical difficulties not controlling when due process requires reconsideration | Court: Practical difficulties insufficient to bar new trial; due process controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 250 S.W.3d 637 (Ky. 2008) (standard for newly discovered evidence to support new trial)
- Bedingfield v. Commonwealth, 260 S.W.3d 805 (Ky. 2008) (granting new trial where DNA evidence undermined key forensic testimony)
- Hardin v. Commonwealth, 396 S.W.3d 909 (Ky. 2013) (order directing post-conviction DNA testing)
- Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion test for reviewing trial-court decisions)
- Clark v. O'Dea, 257 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 2001) (review of habeas claim regarding alleged prosecutorial suppression and witness impeachment)
- District Attorneys v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (U.S. 2009) (addressing post-conviction access to DNA testing; cited regarding limits of its relevance here)