5 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2019–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Foley v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025Regardless of timeliness, Hammond’s motion is without merit. “[N]ewly discovered evidence that merely impeaches the credibility of a witness or is cumulative is generally disfavored as grounds for granting a new trial.” Foley v. Commonwealth, 55 S.W.3d 809, 814 (Ky. 2000) (citation omitted). 2025Regardless of timeliness, Hammond’s motion is without merit. “[N]ewly discovered evidence that merely impeaches the credibility of a witness or is cumulative is generally disfavored as grounds for granting a new trial.” Foley v. Commonwealth, 55 S.W.3d 809, 814 (Ky. 2000) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2020Ordinarily, Sheckles’s out-of-court statements would be inadmissible as hearsay and their admission would violate Hammond’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 62 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Joshua Hammond v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
green
2 sentences2021Id. at 55 . 2019Finally, this Court’s directive in Hammond v. Commonwealth was clear: “this case is remanded for entry of a new judgment consistent with this opinion.” 504 S.W.3d at 58 . | 2 | 2019–2021 |
United States v. Ferguson
green
1 sentence2019Cir. 2014) and United States v. Joseph , 542 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Ferguson , 676 F.3d 260 , 276 n.14 (2d Cir. 2011). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. Joseph
green
2 sentences2019Cir. 2014) and United States v. Joseph , 542 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Ferguson , 676 F.3d 260 , 276 n.14 (2d Cir. 2011). 2019In Joseph , the Court noted that a defendant was still harmed by the exclusion of an expert's testimony about role playing even though the defendant was able to testify to his role playing defense, explaining "when the Government implores a jury to find the defendant and his explanation not credible, we think the presentation of that explanation from a qualified expert would be significant, especially where the explanation is not one with which jurors are likely to have familiarity." Joseph , 542 F.3d at 22 n.10. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. Paul Hite
green
1 sentence2019We are persuaded that expert testimony about sexual role playing would have assisted the jury to understand and weigh Hammond's defense based upon the reasoning in United States v. Hite , 769 F.3d 1154 (D.C. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.