Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

St. Clair v. Commonwealth

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 2004No. 1999-SC-0029-MRPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCooper, Justice

I concur in the majority opinion’s affir-mance of the jury’s verdict of guilt in this case (though not with its analysis of the evidence relating to the Van Zandt deposition) and in its reversal for a new penalty phase trial. However, I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Appellant is eligible for the death penalty in this case.

I. VAN ZANDT DEPOSITION.

At the time of trial, Bylynn Van Zandt, Appellant’s former wife, lived in Durant, Oklahoma. Less than two weeks before trial, the Commonwealth petitioned the trial court for a certificate to obtain her attendance as a witness at trial.…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Barber v. PageSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Calder v. BullSupreme Court of the United States · 1798
  4. Bouie v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Rogers v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API