05 Oct Sept 2026 Supreme Court Round Up
Alas, there were no family law opinions from the Supremes for September 2026. This is likely to change as we move further into the fall months. Stay tuned.
For our friends on the criminal law side, some noteworthy cases were rendered. Spoiler alert: all good for the cops this month, no luck for the robbers. The breakdown is as follows.
Tyler Austin Jordan v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2025-SC-0015
In this reported case, the Commonwealth breaks the rules and gets away with it. The conviction for arson was affirmed. Justice Bisig wrote for the majority.
The Facts
A fire tore through a Lexington apartment building, forcing residents to escape from a second-floor balcony. Several were injured, two seriously. Tyler Jordan, who lived downstairs, stood nearby in pajamas and bare feet, watching the blaze. Investigators found three points where the fire began, including two in Jordan’s apartment. A Fayette County jury convicted him of arson and five counts of wanton endangerment. His sentence: 25 years.
The Trial
At trial, Jordan’s lawyer told the jury that no witness could place Jordan inside the apartment when the fire started. Then a fire investigator testified about a recorded jail call in which Jordan said he had been asleep inside and escaped the fire. The Commonwealth could not show it had disclosed the recording to the defense, despite its obligation to do so.
The Opinion
The majority of the high court held that this was a discovery violation. Still, the Supremes affirmed. The Court reasoned that Jordan was plainly at the scene shortly after the fire began, and his statement did not destroy his broader argument that the prosecution failed to prove he set it. Given the other evidence, the majority saw no reasonable probability of a different verdict.
The Dissent
This is the important part. Justice Nickell, joined by Justice Thompson, would have ordered a new trial. His point deserves attention from anyone who has tried a case: where Jordan stood after the fire began is different from whether he was inside the apartment when it began. Defense counsel built the opening statement and cross-examination around that gap. The undisclosed call filled it in front of the jury, after counsel had already committed to the argument.
The majority distinguished earlier cases because the surprise statements there contradicted defendants who had testified. Jordan did not testify. Nickell’s answer was sharp: a defendant’s testimony is hardly the only part of a defense that late disclosure can wreck. Lawyers choose an opening, question witnesses, and frame the facts based on what the prosecution has disclosed. He also noted that the Court had applied those earlier decisions in a case where the defendant did not testify.
The call was not harmless simply because Jordan said he had been asleep. It placed him at a point where investigators said the fire began. And when the jury heard that statement after counsel had promised there was no such evidence, the damage extended beyond one fact. Jurors could reasonably wonder whether the lawyer had misled them.
Our Take
Here is the uncomfortable question: Why can the state break the discovery rule and still keep the conviction?
The Opinion does not find that police or prosecutors deliberately hid the call. The violation might have been an oversight. But the discovery rule does not turn on good intentions. It requires disclosure so the defense can make informed decisions before trial, not improvise after the jury hears a surprise statement. Nickell worried that affirming under these circumstances leaves too little consequence for a failure that can change the course of a defense.
The majority answers that a violation alone does not require a new trial. The defendant must show enough prejudice to justify that remedy, and the trial judge has broad discretion to decide what to do. That is the holding. It also leaves a hard question for trial judges: when undisclosed evidence strikes an argument already made to the jury, how much damage must the defense prove before the remedy has any teeth?
Reported. http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2025-SC-0115-MR.pdf
Sylvanus Joseph McBride v. The Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2025-SC-0217
Finally, the Supreme Court denied the Kentucky Attorney General’s request to restart executions in Kentucky. This drama has been going on for years. Back in 2010, Franklin Circuit Judge Shepherd issued a stay on the death penalty sentences. It has been in effect since that time. Now, Mr. Coleman wants to move forward with executions. The Supreme Court said not yet. Worth wondering how long this will remain in place.
The link is here: http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2026-SC-0053-OA.pdf
Thanks for reading! Click here for the previous Supreme Court Round Up.