What was expected to be a normal sentencing for a convicted murderer resulted in a new trial — and threats by a Fayette County judge to put a prosecutor in custody for contempt.
In February, a jury convicted James Harvey Hendron, 51, of murdering his 23-year-old son, Austin Hendron. At that time, the jury recommended Hendron serve a life sentence in prison for killing Austin.
Fayette Circuit Judge Julie Goodman decided otherwise on Thursday morning. Hendron appeared for his sentencing, and learned he would be receiving a new trial.
In February, Hendron’s attorney Heather McGregor filed a motion for her client to receive a new trial on the grounds that the commonwealth provided insufficient evidence, misleading testimony and improper arguments in prosecutors’ closings. Life imprisonment, she added, constitutes unusual punishment.
Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Katie Schafer said previously the commonwealth did not ask the jury to consider life imprisonment, but only the range of 20 to 50 years.
“We didn’t ask for that,” Schafer said previously. “We asked the jury to decide what they thought was an appropriate punishment given the fact that he shot and killed his own son. The range could’ve been anywhere from 20-50 years, or life, and they decided to give him life.”
The jury found that Hendron went outside, chased his son out of his house and shot him three times, killed him, then went back inside the house and called the victim’s mother, according to Schafer. Prior court testimony indicated that was how the incident unfolded.
The defense argued Hendron acted in self-defense against his son, and painted the son as the main aggressor in the confrontation.
The defense’s motion
In McGregor’s motion, she claims the commonwealth’s evidence was not sufficient enough to determine Hendron was not acting in self-defense.
“There was no proof put forward that negated Mr. Hendron’s belief that he needed to act in self-defense” McGregor wrote. She asked Judge Goodman to grant a new trial for lesser charges of second-degree manslaughter and reckless homicide.
McGregor also claimed the commonwealth put forth inaccurate testimony.
She argued the testimony given by witnesses did not match the evidence provided by the commonwealth, which McGregor said only factored the differing testimony into their closing statements.
“While the defense understands that memories fade over the years, the commonwealth’s reliance on testimony that they know, or should have known, was inaccurate and purposefully misconstruing other testimony was completely improper and deprived Mr. Hendron of a fair trial,” McGregor said.
These alleged actions are what contributed to the improper closings the defense claims against the prosecutors. McGregor stated in the motion the commonwealth shifted the burden of proof to the defense, and stated they had to prove believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hendron acted in self-defense.
“The burden is, and has always been, on the commonwealth to prove that a defendant DID NOT act in self-defense,” McGregor said. “This blatant burden shifting, in and of itself, shows manifest injustice in this case.”
The commonwealth denied all the claims in their response, according to court documents.
“The defendant opted for a trial by a jury of 12 of his peers, as is his constitutional right, and the jury recommended life imprisonment for the defendant after hearing the facts of the case and mitigation testimony...,” their response read.
Courtroom emotions
Schafer said the defense’s motion and prosecutors’ response had been filed before the Thursday court proceedings, which she assumed would continue as normal for sentencing. No order had been issued by Goodman.
But when they stepped in and the case was called, the attorneys were immediately called to the bench, where Goodman said she reviewed the motions and trial recordings and felt she had no choice but to grant a new trial, Schafer said.
Schafer requested this determination be made on the record, so the commonwealth and the victim’s family could be heard if there was opposition.
When Goodman announced the ruling, Schafer recalls audible gasps from the audience and negative reactions from the victim’s family. It continued to escalate.
Schafer pushed to be heard and said she was told she didn’t have a right to be heard.
Schafer switched gears, and said the victim’s family has a right to be heard under Marcy’s Law. Goodman continually told Schafer to cease talking, and when she didn’t, Schafer said Goodman looked to the bailiffs and said, “If you say another word, bailiffs, take her into custody.”
Schafer told the Herald-Leader the victim’s family was very upset and disappointed with the ruling. After the original trial, the family felt finality after eight years awaiting trial. Now they have to start again. With a new trial order pending, Schafer said the family is fearful that Hendron will be released.
Fayette Commonwealth Attorney Kimberly Baird said her office will work with the Attorney General’s office to appeal the court’s decision. But as far as denying victims the chance to speak, the family would have to file a complaint with the Judicial Conduct Commission.
Prosecutors wanted judge to step away from the case
This development in the case highlights an already contentious battle between prosecutors and Goodman’s court. Before the first trial, the Commonwealth Attorneys Office had requested Goodman recuse herself from the case — and a string of others.
Despite two different attempts by prosecutors to have Circuit Judge Julie Goodman recuse herself — as recent as two days before — the trial began Monday as scheduled.
Hendron was to stand trial on Oct. 30, but that was delayed after a motion was filed claiming Goodman is the cousin to witness Elizabeth Kanis Brushway, a Lexington police sergeant.
The motion asked her to recuse. She declined in November. On Friday, Commonwealth’s Attorney Kimberly Baird filed a second, separate motion for Goodman to recuse herself on the grounds that she was biased and showed animus towards her office.
“At this time, the Commonwealth does not believe that this Court can be fair and impartial to the Commonwealth on any case currently pending before it,” Baird wrote in the motion.
“This Court has made statements that show a clear bias and prejudice towards the Commonwealth, accusing the Commonwealth of prosecutorial misconduct, racism and selective prosecution.”
Goodman again declined to recuse herself.
