Janet Conover Warden v. Kristy Lawless
2016 SC 000320
| Ky. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- In 2014 at Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women, inmates Kristy Lawless and Remonia Mills fought; Officer Jessica Evans was injured while breaking up the altercation.
- Officer Evans reported that Lawless kicked her; Lawless denied this, claiming she defended herself and requested the adjustment officer (AO) review surveillance video.
- AO Kristine Goetzinger conducted a hearing, later executed an affidavit stating she reviewed the video and relied on Officer Evans’ statement; AO found Lawless guilty and initially imposed severe sanctions, later reduced by the warden.
- Lawless filed a pro se due process petition in Shelby Circuit Court; the circuit court dismissed, concluding there was some evidence supporting the AO’s finding.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, directing the circuit court to review and consider the surveillance video; the Commonwealth appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the AO’s post‑hearing affidavit satisfied due process and that the AO’s reliance on the officer’s statement met the “some evidence” standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AO’s failure to expressly reference surveillance footage in initial written findings violated due process | Lawless: AO denied meaningful opportunity to present exculpatory evidence and thus due process required in camera review by the court | Appellants: AO reviewed footage (via affidavit), relied on victim statement; no denial of meaningful opportunity | Held: No violation — AO supplemented findings with affidavit stating she reviewed video; due process satisfied. |
| Whether the circuit court must independently review and document consideration of allegedly exculpatory evidence when AO has reviewed it | Lawless: Circuit court should review and document findings regarding exculpatory evidence | Appellants: Circuit court need only determine whether some evidence supports AO’s decision when no dispute AO considered evidence | Held: Circuit court review required only if AO failed to consider the evidence; otherwise the usual "some evidence" review applies. |
| Whether reliance on the victim’s statement satisfies the "some evidence" standard | Lawless: Video and witness statements undermined the victim’s account, removing "some evidence" | Appellants: Victim’s statement constitutes some evidence supporting guilt | Held: Reliance on Officer Evans’ statement provided the minimal "some evidence" required. |
| Whether the Department of Corrections must bear burden for transmitting the record | Lawless: Court of Appeals imposed transmission burden on DOC (issue raised by appellate court) | Appellants: Not argued below; parties did not brief the issue | Held: Court declined to decide because the issue was not raised or briefed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (disciplinary findings satisfy due process if supported by some evidence)
- Ramirez v. Nietzel, 424 S.W.3d 911 (Ky. 2014) (AO must review requested security footage; if AO denies review, circuit court must conduct in camera review)
- Foley v. Haney, 345 S.W.3d 861 (Ky. App. 2011) (AO must review allegedly exculpatory records and document consideration in findings)