Court Opinion

ID: 9699770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:50:54.504169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:57.222095
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Justice CUNNINGHAM.
I concur in the well-written opinion of Justice Minton. I write only to emphasize a very important point, at least from my perspective, regarding trial guidance.
Justice Minton ably speaks to the discretion allowed the trial judge in paring down needed witnesses and eliminating those that are unnecessary. Because of the age of this case, I am bold enough to suggest that the trial court might decide that none of them are necessary. The court’s broad discretion should also allow the utilization of affidavits, avowals, and other procedural aids available in filtering through proposed testimony.
This case went to trial almost twenty years ago. The crimes were committed over twenty-two years ago. Before the trial court is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial during sentencing. The issue involves what mitigation evidence was available to defense counsel long ago when the case was tried. Supposedly, twenty-three mitigation witnesses from Tennessee are now being sought — many of whom, if not all, are relatives. What value any of these stale witnesses would have to mitigate, at this late *111date, such an atrocious crime, committed so long ago, makes me wonder. This is not to mention the implausibility, if not impossibility, of defense counsel at trial in the distant past — or those called on his or her behalf — now being able to accurately recall why such witnesses were not presented, or even if counsel was ever made aware of them.
Basic fairness must surface through the foggy haze of time for the Commonwealth, as well as Petitioners. We hold only, at least in my opinion, that public funds are available for these witnesses — nothing more. See Commonwealth v. Paisley, 201 S.W.3d 34 (Ky.2006).
LAMBERT, C.J.; and SCOTT, J., join.