Hardin v. Commonwealth
2013 Ky. LEXIS 91
| Ky. | 2013Background
- Defendants Hardin and Clark were convicted in 1995 of a highly circumstantial 1992 murder of Rhonda Warford in Kentucky.
- Evidence at trial included a fingerprint from Clark’s car and a hair on Warford’s sweatpants; other hairs were found but not conclusive.
- The Commonwealth framed the case around Satanism; no eyewitness identifications tied defendants to the crime.
- After trial, a letter suggesting perjury by a key witness (Capps) emerged, but a prior ruling found new evidence would not likely change the verdict.
- In 2009 the Innocence Project sought post-conviction DNA testing of hairs and fingernail scrapings; fingernail scrapings could not be located.
- Meade Circuit Court denied testing, citing no manifest injustice and no exculpatory potential under Bedingfield-based reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-capital defendants have a right to post-conviction DNA testing | Innocence Project argues a due process right to testing exists. | Commonwealth contends no statute authorizes non-capital testing; no manifest injustice shown. | Yes; Appellants entitled to testing. |
| Whether DNA testing would reasonably exonerate or alter the verdict | Testing could identify the perpetrator or exclude defendants. | Testing would at most implicate a third party, not exonerate. | DNA results could with reasonable certainty change the verdict. |
| Whether Bedingfield controls the path for relief and the trial court abused discretion | Bedingfield allows testing and new-trial relief for newly discovered DNA evidence. | Bedingfield not applicable to the current non-capital context. | Trial court abused its discretion; testing must be allowed and proceedings remanded. |
| Whether safeguards and proper custodial process are required for testing | Testing should proceed under accredited lab with custody safeguards. | Superseding safeguards required; court to set guidelines to protect chain of custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bedingfield v. Commonwealth, 260 S.W.3d 805 (Ky. 2008) (newly discovered DNA evidence may warrant a new trial)
- Commonwealth v. Tamme, 83 S.W.3d 465 (Ky. 2002) (discusses outcomes under DNA-related evidence)
- District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (U.S. 2009) (recognizes due process right to post-conviction DNA testing)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (U.S. 2011) (DNA testing claims cognizable under § 1983)