The Court considered Meskimen’s motion to
suppress a series of pre-trial statements, and held that the defendant’s
request to be taken to the hospital during the initial questioning did not
clearly and unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent. Nor was the defendant “so intoxicated as to
reach the point of mania or give an unreliable statement,” such that the Court
would consider his statement involuntary.
Nor did the Court consider the actions of the police in refusing to take
the defendant to the hospital, even though his skull was fractured so badly as
to require four days of hospitalization, two of which were in the ICU, to be
coercive.
In
addition, the Court did not consider the failure of the trial judge to hold a
Daubert
hearing on the reliability of hair comparison evidence to be an error in
this case, relying on its earlier holding in
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 12
S.W.3d 258, 261 (Ky. 1999).
The Court
cautioned, however, “[E]ven though case law may be in acceptance of a certain
method of analysis, it is the trial court's duty to ensure that method is
supported by scientific findings, or at least not seriously questioned by
recent reputable scientific findings, before taking judicial notice of its
acceptability.”
The
issues were preserved by Shannon Brooks-English, of the Fayette County Trial
Office. Tom Ransdell was the appellate
attorney.
Contributed by Kathleen Schmidt