Murphy v. Kentucky; And Phillips v. Kentucky

Background

Two people convicted in Kentucky were tried after the State repealed a rule that had required corroboration for accomplice testimony. The repeal took effect on September 1, 1980. Each defendant was charged for crimes committed before that date. At trial, judges refused requests to instruct juries that they could not convict on uncorroborated accomplice testimony, and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed both convictions in Murphy and Phillips.

Reasoning

The key question was whether applying the repeal to earlier crimes violated the Constitution’s ban on retroactive laws. The Kentucky court held the change was procedural, did not reduce the amount of proof needed to convict, and only removed a restriction on the competency of certain witnesses. That court relied on this Court’s older decision in Hopt v. Utah and related cases. Other courts, including the Third Circuit, have reached the opposite conclusion and treated such repeals as reducing the proof required.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court declined to review these cases, the Kentucky rulings remain in place and the broader constitutional question is unsettled. The dissent noted that about 15 other States have accomplice-corroboration rules that they might abolish, meaning defendants and witnesses in many jurisdictions could face changing standards for convicting someone based on accomplice testimony. The denial of review is not a final decision on the constitutional issue.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justices Brennan and Powell, dissented from the Court’s refusal to hear the cases and urged review because lower courts are divided and many States could be affected.