Whence Cometh Evil? Making Sense of Human Suffering and COVID-19

CHARLES E. BINKLEY

Surgeon and bioethicist Charles E. Binkley, MD, offers a perspective on how we might make sense of suffering, particularly in light of the present COVID-19 pandemic. Binkley suggests that through suffering, we are paradoxically able to find good, and in this instance, that good might be the practice of social reciprocity.

Read More

Commonwealth v. Bredhold

Dockets: 2017-SC-000436-TG, 2017-SC-000536-TG, 2017-SC-000537-TG

Opinion Date: March 26, 2020

Judge: Hughes

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court vacated the interlocutory orders of the trial court concluding that Defendants' individual psychological assessments provided further support for the exclusion of the death penalty as to Defendants individually, holding that the constitutional issue in this case was not a "justiciable cause" before the circuit court and was not properly before the Supreme Court. At issue in these consolidated cases was whether evolving standards of decency require that the Eighth Amendment prohibit imposition of the death penalty as to a defendant under twenty-one years old at the time of his offense. Defendants argued before the circuit court that the current national consensus and scientific research supported raising the age for death-penalty eligible from age eighteen to twenty-one. At this stage in the proceedings, none of the defendants had been convicted or sentenced. The circuit court declared Kentucky's death penalty statute unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment insofar as it permits capital punishment for offenders under twenty-one years old at the time of their offense and that two of the defendants should not receive the death penalty. The Supreme Court vacated the interlocutory orders, holding that none of the defendants had standing to raise an Eighth Amendment challenge to the death penalty.

Mostert v. Mostert Group, LLC

Docket: 2017-SC-000600-DG

Opinion Date: March 26, 2020

Judge: Hughes

Areas of Law: Contracts

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the trial court granting partial summary judgment in favor of Paul Mostert and partially dismissing The Mostert Group, LLC's (TMG) breach of contract claims, holding that partial summary judgment in favor of Mostert was improper. Mostert agreed to transfer certain computer technology to TMG in exchange for TMG stock, cash, and a promissory note payable in installments. When Mostert refused to deliver to TMG the source code, which was essential to maintaining and updating the software technology, TMG refused to make the final promissory note payment to Mostert. TMG filed two lawsuits against Mostert. The circuit court granted Mostert's motion for partial summary judgment on the grounds that TMG's allegations against Mostert arose after the note was executed and the trial court previously established that Mostert had a security interest in and therefore a right to possess the collateral. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Mostert possessed a security interest in the software but not the source code. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mostert breached the parties' contract, which excused TMG's obligation to further perform under the contribution agreement.

Roberts v. Commonwealth

Docket: 2018-SC-000249-MR

Opinion Date: March 26, 2020

Judge: Wright

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of murder and vacated her twenty-year sentence, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to grant Defendant's motions for a mistrial and in ruling that Defendant did not qualify for the domestic violence exemption for parole ineligibility. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial after the Commonwealth played inadequately redacted recordings of police interviews with Defendant; and (2) the trial court erred in ruling that Defendant did not qualify for the domestic violence exemption for parole eligibility pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 403.720.

White v. Commonwealth

Docket: 2014-SC-000725-MR

Opinion Date: March 26, 2020

Judge: Vanmeter

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

After the United States Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded Defendant's case to the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017), the Supreme Court remanded this case to the circuit court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's intellectual disability claim, holding that Defendant produced enough evidence to form a reasonable doubt as to his intellectual capacities so as to warrant a hearing on the issue. In 2014, Defendant was convicted of murder and rape in the first degree. The jury recommended a sentence of death for the murder. The Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment for further consideration in light of the Court's analysis in Moore regarding the execution of intellectually disabled defendants. Since the remand, Defendant pro se asked the Supreme Court to waive his intellectual disability claim so he could move forward with post-conviction proceedings. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding (1) due to his death sentence, Defendant may not pro se waive his pending intellectual disability claim; and (2) Defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the matter of his potential intellectual disability.

Layman v. Bohanon

Docket: 2019-SC-000364-DGE

Opinion Date: March 26, 2020

Judge: Michelle M. Keller

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing a portion of an order of the family court that modified the parties' timesharing arrangement and recalculated child support, holding that the court of appeals erred. The family court issued an order modifying the parties' timesharing arrangement and holiday schedule and recalculating child support. The court of appeals affirmed the modification of the holiday scheduled but otherwise reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals as to the issues before the Court, holding (1) the court of appeals incorrectly interpreted and applied Ky. Rev. Stat. 403.270 and Ky. Rev. Stat. 403.320; (2) the family court did not err in modifying the timesharing schedule; and (3) the family court did not err in calculating child support based on the parties' stated salaries and in declining to impute income to Wife for gifts received from her parents.