Stacy v. Commonwealth, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 41

Rioter Newell Stacy was convicted of first-degree riot and as a first-degree PFO following a Northpoint prison riot (Aug. 21, 2009).
Trial court sentenced him to 20 years, enhanced from a five-year riot term due to PFO status.
Appeal challenges: (1) replaying witness testimony during deliberations without his presence, (2) conflict-of-interest in DPA representation, (3) speedy-trial rights under Kentucky law and the Sixth Amendment, (4) witnesses testifying in shackles/prison garb.
Deliberations included jury review of testimony on recordings in the jury room; defense had no objection, and the court admitted the material outside the defendant’s presence.
Jury found Stacy guilty of riot and PFO; the court adopted the jury’s recommended sentence.
On review, the court upheld the convictions and sentence, finding no palpable error or reversible prejudice in the challenged procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Replay of testimony during deliberations	Stacy asserts due-process violation due to out-of-court replay.	Stacy argues trial error prejudiced defense.	No palpable error; not shown to affect verdict.
Conflict of interest in counsel	Joint representation violated Sixth Amendment and RCr 8.30.	No adverse effect shown; joint representation allowed.	No reversible error; no demonstrated prejudice.
Speedy trial under KRS 500.110	Detention plus delay violated speedy-trial rights.	Delay was attributable to defense and logistics; within 180 days.	KRS 500.110 not violated; within 180 days.
Witnesses in shackles/prison garb	Shackles/garb violate fair-trial rights.	State interest in safety may justify restraints.	No manifest injustice; public-safety balancing outweighed prejudice.

Snyder v. Massachusetts, 223 U.S. 2 (1934) (U.S. 1934) (presence required when essential to defense; due process basis)
McGuire v. Commonwealth, 368 S.W.3d 100 (Ky. 2012) (replay of testimony requires open court, presence of defendant; palpable-error standard applied)
Mills v. Commonwealth, 44 S.W.3d 366 (Ky. 2001) (necessity of open in-court proceedings for jury questions)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (framework for speedy-trial analysis (length, reasons, assertion, prejudice))
Dunaway v. Commonwealth, 60 S.W.3d 563 (Ky. 2001) (context matters in prejudice and delay analysis)
Bratcher v. Commonwealth, 151 S.W.3d 332 (Ky. 2004) (presumptive prejudice governs Barker factors in complex cases)
Smith v. Commonwealth, 361 S.W.3d 908 (Ky. 2012) (preserves focus on prejudice to defense, not mere delay)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (presumptive prejudice triggers Barker inquiry; weighs delay responsibility)
Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1986) (intrinsic prejudicial practices require state interests for justification)
Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976) (prison garb appearance may raise fairness concerns)