Man convicted of Lexington murders gets life sentence after request for new trial is denied
A Michigan man convicted of a double homicide in Lexington had asked for a new trial, but a Fayette County judge rejected his request and instead sentenced him to life in prison Thursday.
Antonio “Tyree” Gaskin’s attorneys requested a new trial in a previously-filed motion, arguing that prosecutors withheld evidence and Gaskin’s case deserved to be heard by a new jury. Fayette Circuit Judge Thomas Travis disagreed and overruled the motion last week.
Gaskin 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. At that time, the jury recommended he serve a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 20 years. Travis imposed that recommended sentence on Thursday.
Speaking in court Thursday, Gaskin said he believed the system failed him, and the case was not properly investigated by police.
“I don’t feel this case was investigated, and I was profiled because of my history,” Gaskin said. “If (police) had investigated, they would have the right person in custody, but because they didn’t, I am sitting here. It’s unfair, but the truth is going to prevail.”
Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Kathryn Webster disagreed, and said no one else could have committed this crime.
“The family believes the information given by the defendant has been manipulative in order to cover his tracks,” she said.
Sharmaine Carter, 25, and Marquis Harris, 24, were the victims in the deadly shooting.
The sister of Harris said in court Thursday she hated Gaskin, who was formerly a beloved family friend.
“I pray that you get the rest of your life in prison because I will never get my brother back,” she said. “I can’t believe you did this. I thought you loved us. I thought you were family and you turned on my baby brother like this.”
Why Gaskin’s attorneys thought he deserved new trial
Gaskin’s attorneys — Sarah Langer, J. Parker Mincy and Lindsay Yates — pushed for a new trial for their client, alleging that evidence was withheld by prosecutors. Some of this evidence included interviews, documents and additional fact witnesses.
But Travis wrote in court documents that the “so-called withheld information” failed to establish a reasonable belief that the information contained material, “exculpatory” evidence, or that information was “new,” or of such value that it would within reasonable certainty have changed the verdict or change the result if a new trial was granted.
During a December hearing, Gaskin’s attorneys placed a heavy focus on several Lexington Police Department investigators regarding a trip they made out of state to Cincinnati and Detroit just ahead of Gaskin’s trial.
They thought any information used during this trip was additional information that was not disclosed to their team originally.
But witnesses called by the defense team, including Detective Brandon Gibbs and Detective Christopher Ward, said they simply were doing a follow up before the trial. Gibbs said this is common practice, and the trips were based off claims based on the defendant’s story.
“We followed every lead we were able to follow, until we couldn’t follow it anymore,” Gibbs said during previous testimony.
Both Gibbs and Ward claimed they did not conduct interviews or take notes. They said their trip to Cincinnati was simply to follow up on claims made by Gaskin about his whereabouts around the time of the murder. In addition, they said their reasoning for traveling to Detroit was purely to serve a subpoena for a witness to testify.
It was argued that investigators were following up on information given by the defendant at a final pretrial conference, and therefore, the defense was aware of follow up information, because they had divulged it originally.
“All of that information came through the defendant during a pretrial conference, which are confidential,” Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Jackie Alexander said previously. “(Gaskin) sat and told us the story. Based on the information he gave, we did our due diligence to say, ‘If there is something we need to follow up on, we are going to do it.’”
Alexander also argued that nothing came of the investigation, but did admit they had not told the defense the investigators had gone to Cincinnati or to Michigan.
Gaskin’s defense team argued these final trips could be considered as investigations, which they were unaware of. They stated if they had been made aware, they could call additional witnesses during the original trial.
