Court Opinion

ID: 9605230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:31:54.318254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:26.556471
License: Public Domain

KELLER, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent, primarily for the reasons expressed in my dissent in Taylor’s second appeal of his conviction and death sentence.1 Though I do not wish to engage in an extended analysis again, I must point out that the trial court committed an error of constitutional magnitude when it allowed George Wade’s statement to be introduced into evidence. The Supreme Court of the United States recognized this error when it overruled Ohio v. Roberts2 and cited our opinion in Taylor’s second appeal as an example of “[t]he unpardonable vice of ... Roberts ... [i.e.,] its demonstrated capacity to admit core testimonial statements that the Confrontation Clause plainly meant to exclude.”3 We also recognized this error when we noted that Crawford “remov[ed] any remaining underpinning for the admission of such evidence in Taylor.”4
Given the magnitude of Wade’s testimony, which was the only evidence that identified Taylor as the shooter in these murders, it is inconceivable that we could label its introduction as harmless error. By refusing to reverse Taylor’s conviction a third time, however, we are simply allowing this blatant error to stand, perhaps in the hope that the federal courts will address the issue. While I have no doubt that they will, and that they should, we do *81not need to wait for the federal courts to provide maid service to clean up the mess created by our flawed evidentiary ruling, especially when this case is already over fifteen years stale. We perform an additional disservice to both the Commonwealth and Appellant by adding further to the staleness and possible loss of the evidence when we once again ignore the law and fail to reverse and remand for a new trial at this time.

. See Taylor v. Commonwealth, 63 S.W.3d 151, 168 (Ky.2001) (Keller, J., dissenting).

. 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980).

. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); see also Terry v. Commonwealth, 153 S.W.3d 794, 800 (Ky.2005) (“The [United States Supreme] Court specifically identified Taylor II as an example of the type of error attributable to Roberts.”).

.Terry, 153 S.W.3d at 800; Bowling v. Commonwealth, 168 S.W.3d 2 (Ky.2004) (recognizing that Crawford abrogated our decision in Taylor v. Commonwealth, 63 S.W.3d 151 (Ky.2001) as to this issue).