Jason Palmer v. Hon Pamela Goodwine Judge, Fayette Circuit Court
2016 SC 000288
| Ky. | Dec 14, 2016Background
- Trooper Jason Palmer stopped Paul Carter after observing potential traffic issues; Palmer saw Carter put something in his mouth during the stop.
- Palmer informed Carter of Miranda rights; a vehicle search produced marijuana "roaches." Carter later admitted putting roaches in his mouth.
- A trained drug-detection officer believed Carter was impaired; Carter was transported to jail and a search found marijuana and cocaine concealed on him.
- Carter was criminally charged; charges were later dismissed by agreed order after defense obtained video of the stop. Carter sued Palmer (federal and state claims, including malicious prosecution); most claims were dismissed in federal court except a Kentucky malicious-prosecution claim remanded to state court.
- In state court, Palmer sought an in limine ruling to exclude references to his prior courtroom testimony that he had claimed no video existed; the court denied Palmer’s motion and granted Carter’s motion to exclude Carter’s criminal-history evidence. Palmer sought a writ of prohibition from the Court of Appeals to block the trial-court rulings; the Court of Appeals denied relief and the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a writ of prohibition should issue to prevent trial-court use of Palmer's prior testimony (alleged false testimony about nonexistence of video) | Carter contends the prior testimony is probative of non-testimonial, pretrial acts (authoring citation) and thus admissible | Palmer argued testimonial immunity bars using his testimony and a writ is necessary to prevent disclosure and prejudice | Court denied writ; appellate court did not abuse discretion in refusing prohibition |
| Whether exclusion of Carter's criminal-history and charging evidence was improper | Carter sought exclusion as prejudicial and irrelevant | Palmer argued such evidence was admissible and its exclusion would harm his defense | Court held exclusion was not writ-worthy; Palmer failed to show no adequate appellate remedy or irreparable harm |
| Whether violation of testimonial immunity or privilege justifies extraordinary writ relief | Carter relied on ordinary evidentiary rules to admit non-testimonial conduct | Palmer sought equitable writ relief analogizing to privilege/immunity protection from disclosure | Court found immunity issue insufficient to invoke "special case" exception; analogy to privilege inadequate |
| Whether appellant showed extraordinary circumstances (no adequate remedy on appeal; irreparable harm) meriting writ | Carter maintained ordinary appeal is adequate | Palmer claimed irreparable injury from evidentiary rulings | Court held Palmer did not demonstrate lack of adequate appellate remedy or irreparable injury; denied writ |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2004) (standards for issuing writs of prohibition)
- Independent Order of Foresters v. Chauvin, 175 S.W.3d 610 (Ky. 2005) (writ issuance when "special cases" present)
- Bender v. Eaton, 343 S.W.2d 799 (Ky. 1961) (treatment of "special cases" allowing writs without showing irreparable injury)
- Collins v. Braden, 384 S.W.3d 154 (Ky. 2012) (privilege violations and adequacy of appellate remedies in writ context)
- St. Luke Hospitals, Inc. v. Kopowski, 160 S.W.3d 771 (Ky. 2005) (discussing privileged information and writs)
- Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (no malice element required for Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims)