Grady v. Commonwealth, 325 S.W.3d 333

Background

Grady was convicted in Jefferson Circuit Court of multiple counts including two counts of first-degree robbery and others, with a first-degree persistent felony offender finding, and sentenced to 70 years; he appeals as a matter of right.
Criswell, a hotel guest, was robbed at gunpoint in Louisville; he described the attacker as a light-skinned African-American male who allegedly wore a stocking mask and was seen after the incident.
Stivers observed a man near Check-Into-Cash and relayed details to police; police pursued a white Trailblazer connected to Grady, leading to his arrest after a chase and a wreck.
Witnesses Sanchez, Mojika, and Rapp provided testimony at the scene but did not testify at trial; Wheeler, the landlord, testified about tenants’ statements.
Grady allegedly waived Miranda rights and confessed to some acts; he contends his waiver and statements were ineffective or involuntary, and he was prevented from testifying at a suppression hearing.
The Supreme Court of Kentucky reverses Grady’s conviction and remands for a new trial, addressing Faretta waiver, replacement of counsel, suppression, identification, and hearsay issues

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Faretta waiver of counsel not properly addressed	Grady proceeded pro se with no warning; eyes open standard not satisfied	Commonwealth asserts implicit waiver based on record and competency	Conviction reversed; remanded for new trial due to Faretta warning failure
Replacement of counsel; good cause	Bar complaint and civil suit against counsel indicate conflict; failure to substitute prejudiced Grady	No automatic conflict; disputes resolved; no good cause shown	No reversible error for substitution; remand noted potential conflict considerations on remand
Suppression hearing; testifying and Miranda/voluntariness	Grady would testify; denial tainted suppression ruling; could alter Miranda/voluntariness findings	Trial court properly limited testimony; evidentiary issues require review on remand	Entitled to new suppression hearing on remand; Miranda/voluntariness issues must be re-evaluated
In-court identification; lost pretrial lineup materials	Lost lineup supports presumption of unduly suggestive identification; independent basis needed	Independent basis may exist; trial court may determine reliability factors	Remand to assess Savage/Yiel Savage-based independent reliability; presumption of unduly suggestive lineup acknowledged
Hearsay; Wheeler statements and officer testimony under Crawford/Davis	Confrontation Clause violations; improper hearsay affected credibility of witnesses	Statements non-testimonial or otherwise non-constitutional; no palpable error	Hearsay issues addressed; reversal on Faretta grounds; incidente remand; non-testimonial finding for Wheeler statements; officers’ testimony not reviewed on preserved basis

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to counsel; advisory warnings when self-representation invoked)
Tovar v. United States, 541 U.S. 77 (2004) (knowingly intelligent waiver standard; no rigid script required)
Depp v. Commonwealth, 278 S.W.3d 615 (Ky. 2009) (Faretta advisory obligations; eyes open standard emphasis)
Hill v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 221 (Ky. 2004) (minimum Faretta warnings framework prior to proceeding pro se)
Terry v. Commonwealth, 295 S.W.3d 819 (Ky. 2009) (context for Faretta warnings and hybrid representation considerations)
Deno v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 753 (Ky. 2005) (good cause for substitution; communication breakdown standard)
Savage v. Commonwealth, 920 S.W.2d 512 (Ky. 1995) (independent basis of reliability analysis in pretrial identification)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (confrontation clause; testimonial statements analysis)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (definition of testimonial; ongoing emergency considerations)
Hartsfield v. Commonwealth, 277 S.W.3d 239 (Ky. 2009) (non-testimonial statements to lay witnesses; application of Davis factors)