Will man convicted in Lexington double homicide get new trial? A judge will soon decide
A Detroit man already convicted of a double homicide by a jury could have a chance for a new trial following a court hearing scheduled next week.
Antonio “Tyree” Gaskin, 45, was found guilty by a jury in July for two counts of murder and failing to report deaths after two people were found shot dead at a Lexington apartment in 2019. The jury also recommended he serve a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 20 years.
But in September Gaskin’s defense team requested a new trial, claiming evidence was withheld by prosecutors. That evidence included interviews, documents and “key investigative steps” taken by investigators, according to court documents.
Defense attorneys previously wrote in court documents that prosecutors “deprived the defendant of a fair trial by failing to disclose evidence material to his guilt or innocence.”
Gaskin’s hearing over a new trial is scheduled for Tuesday. Prosecutors and the defense team will argue whether or not Gaskin deserves a new trial and the court will decide whether or not the case should be heard again.
Prosecutors wrote in court documents they hope the court will deny Gaskin’s request.
“The commonwealth worked with the detectives from the beginning of the case, through pretrial conference, and during trial to ensure full investigations were conducted and followed up on,” prosecutors wrote in court records. “It is clear that the defendant, through his attorneys and investigator, are attempting to publicly smear the reputations of two experienced attorneys.
“But the actual facts presented clearly show there was no exculpatory evidence withheld and the Defendant was not prejudiced in any way. Because the defendant has not in any way met his burden under the law, the commonwealth respectfully requests, again, that the court deny defendant’s renewed motion for a new trial.”
Judge denies new subpoenas prior to hearing on another trial
The defense team — consisting of attorneys Sarah Langer, J. Parker Mincy and Lindsey Yates — attempted to subpoena the suspected withheld evidence from prosecutors Kathryn Webster and Jackie Alexander, which they thought would help their case.
But on Thursday Fayette Circuit Judge Thomas Travis ruled in favor of the prosecutors, and rejected subpoena motions filed by Gaskin’s attorneys. He said their request did not meet several criteria upheld by Kentucky law.
Joshua Powell, an investigator for the defense team who filed open records requests with the Lexington Police Department to find new information on the case, said the defense team would’ve been able to better prepare for next week’s hearing on a new trial if Travis had permitted the new subpoenas. He said the evidence could still be used if a new trial is granted.
The subpoenas were sent in post-trial by Gaskin’s attorneys once they learned through an open records request with the Lexington Police Department that further investigative steps had been taken they were not aware of.
During court proceedings, Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Kathryn Webster called the defense’s request a “fishing expedition’‘ and stated their requests were broad in scope. She also said the content was irrelevant.
“I believe very strongly this is a fishing expedition and a way to circumvent the discovery rules with such a broad request,” Webster said.
“They requested emails, text messages, and other information not subject to discovery under the Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure that was created during the investigation of this case,” court documents state.
Prosecutors also took issue with the way in which the subpoenas were served to officers and investigators. Defense attorneys filed subpoenas, but did not go before the court for further guidance or to set an official hearing.
Langer and Mincy explained they had originally requested subpoenas for evidence during the pretrial process, but it wasn’t until the open records request was filed after the trial that they found more information. The additional information led to the second round of subpoenas.
“I am not sure what else we could have done to take care of any of this without having issued subpoenas, and without having to go through this process,” Mincy said. “We aren’t trying to get around discovery procedures, we are trying to follow them.”
“During pretrial, we were told there were no further items in discovery,” Langer said. “Upon receiving the open records, we found there was information that was not included in discovery. All of this stems from the realization from the open records.”
