Although slightly “off-mission” from SCOKYBLOG’s usual focus on the present Justices, occasionally my mind wanders a bit, and a week or so ago it ended up somewhere interesting enough to share.

I recognize that it is entirely possible that this only happens to me, but, from to time when researching one issue or another, I’ll run across a citation to a case (typicaly one that was otherwise memorable to me for one reason or another) where the SCOKY reversed and remanded for a new trial, and I’ll wonder what happened at the retrial. Usually, the jury’s verdict at the retrial is not substantially different from the first go-round, so I can find out from the subsequent appeal. Occasionally, however, I have to dig a little deeper.

A week or so ago, on a lazy Friday afternoon, my mind wandered to Melissa Holland’s case.

The SCOKY rendered the Opinion in Melissa Phillips Holland v. Commonwealth (this takes a while to load, but it’s worth the time) in September 2003. This one is memorable to me for a number of reasons, largely because it was a factual intriguing case, but also because I have a friend in the Lexington legal criminal defense bar who refers to it as her favorite opinion ever and mentions it to me from time to time. Like many of the cases that find their way to the SCOKY, this one involved a tragic shooting that left one of Ms. Holland’s victim’s paralyzed for life. It was the factual circumstances leading up to the shooting, e.g., a love triangle, alleged physical abuse of the defendant by one of the victims, a handgun purchased by the defendant while she was wearing a hospital gown and in the midst of a day-or-so-long prescription- painkiller-induced fugue-like state, etc., that made this case memorable.

In 1998, a Hardin Circuit Court jury found Ms. Holland guilty of two counts two counts of Attempted Murder and one count of First-Degree Burglary and the trial judge ultimately sentenced Ms. Holland to the aggregate forty-year prison sentence recommended by the jury. On appeal, in August 2000 the SCOKY initially rendered an Opinion affirming the Hardin Circuit Court Judgment. Subsequently, however, Ms. Holland filed a Petition for Rehearing, which the SCOKY first held in abeyance pending the Court’s resolution of another case involving a similar issue concerning extreme emotional disturbance (EED) and then granted and directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs. Ultimately, in September 2003, the Court rendered an Opinion reversing the Judgment of the Hardin Circuit Court and remanding the case for a new trial because of errors in the trial court’s instructions.

My first thought was to search the Kentucky Court of Justice website for a pending or (in case I missed it) a rendered Opinion from the judgment following the retrial. I found footprints from some interlocutory appellate / extraordinary relief litigation, but no post-judgment appeal.

Fortunately, the Fourth Estate is alive and well in Hardin County, and The News Enterprise has an excellent online archive. As a result, I was able to track the proceedings upon remand up through the ultimate verdict in a series of articles written by reporter Rebecca Johns. Links to each of the articles are provided below, grouped loosely by topic:

Supreme Court Decision:

Retrial Ordered In 1996 Love Triangle Shootings

New Trial Doesn’t Rest Well With One Victim

Post-Remand Pre-Trial Proceedings in Trial Court:

Holland Retrial Can Proceed: Judge Finds Woman Competent For Retrial For Double Attempted Murder

Retrial Weighs Heavy On One Victim

More Twists Surround Holland Case

Holland Retrial Delayed Again

Judge Questions Holland’s Competence After Courtroom Outburst

High Profile Cases Pack Circuit Court Tuesday

Holland’s Attempted Murder Charges Could Be Dropped

Holland Refuses To Attend Pretrial Hearing

The Retrial:

Holland Jury To Be Chosen Today

Holland Questions Potential Jurors

Prosecutor Says Jealous Rage Made Holland Shoot

Holland Says She Has Counsel Woes Again

Danny Darnall Takes The Stand

Suspect, Victim Spar On Stand

Victim Describes Night Of Shooting

Doctors: Holland Suffers From Disorder

Holland Denied Bid For Mistrial

Holland Takes The Stand

Holland Guilty, But Could Go Free

(I love the part of this article that reports about Ms. Holland’s efforts to have a portion of the SCOKY’s Opinion quoted verbatim in the jury’s instructions. Apparently, some appellant litigants do hang on every word in these Opinions.)

Holland Could Be Free By Tuesday

Post-Retrial Proceedings:

Juror In 98 Trial Disagrees With Outcome

Holland’s Parents To Take Her To N.C.

Holland Denied Bid For New Trial

Ultimately, therefore, the second jury found Ms. Holland guilty only of the lesser-included offenses (Assault Under Extreme Emotional Disturbance) and sentenced her to a sentence for which she had already satisfied the minimum expiration date. In light of the fact that Ms. Holland’s entitlement to EED instructions was one of the critical issues in her original direct appeal, it appears that the SCOKY correctly concluded that those instructions could have made a significant difference. I can only assume that Ms. Holland ultimately decided not to pursue a post-Judgment appeal.