Category: SCOKY Decisions

TRIAL PROCEDURE & EVIDENCE: Proffer of expected testimony found by SCOKY to be too vague to preserve error on appeal (Eric Henderson vs. Commonwealth of Kentucky SC Published 8/21/2014)

From the former practice of preserving testimony with an avowal to the KRE 103 proffer of expected testimony, a trap is laid  for the need for specificity and clarity  falling short of the actual avowal of the testimony of...

Read More

Wilma Jean Shelton vs. Kentucky Easter Seals Society, Inc., 2011-SC-000554-DG, SC, Published 11/22/2013 – Open and Obvious Doctrine Buried

A 4-3 decision announced this past week and authored by Chief Justice Minton should end nearly three years of parsing and quibbling over their earlier decision in Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh,  319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky....

Read More

Experts: Daubert Hearing Admits Hair Comparison Evidence but SCOKY reminds all that prior rulings on admissibility “not set in stone” (Meskimen vs. Commonwealth of Kentucky, SCOKY, Pub, 4/25/2013

Although SCOKY affirmed the scientific evidence of “hair comparison” evidence which has been historically admissible in Kentucky, Justice Scott shot a warning volley over the bow of Daubert with a bit of a warning...

Read More
Loading

Sign up for Kentucky Court Report Email Updates

Receive postings by email.
* = required field

Most Recent Posts

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This website is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice on any subject matter. By viewing the posts, contents and other information on this website, the reader understands there is no attorney-client relationship between the reader and the website/blog publisher and that it should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney.

Readers are urged to consult their own legal counsel on any specific legal questions concerning a specific situation.