Opinion ID: 1677663
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: failure to suppress franklin's testimony.

Text: Appellant did not preserve this claimed error for review. His theory is that one who has received a plea bargain in exchange for an agreement to testify should not be permitted to testify. (!) In support of this novel proposal, he cites United States v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir.1998), a decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. That panel was purporting to apply to plea agreements a federal statute that penalizes whoever ... gives, offers, or promises anything of value ... for or because of testimony. 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2). Kentucky has no similar statute. More significantly, the decision of the three-judge panel in Singleton was vacated on rehearing by the full Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, United States v. Singleton, 165 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir.1999), thus has no precedential value whatsoever. As did the Tenth Circuit, we reject this proposition as detrimental to the essential administration of justice. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Jefferson Circuit Court are affirmed. LAMBERT, C.J., GRAVES, JOHNSTONE, KELLER and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., concur. STUMBO, J., dissents by separate opinion.