Jonathan Brock Stansbury v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Summary

The court affirmed Stansbury’s convictions but reversed the sentencing phase and remanded for a new sentencing trial. It held that limiting speculative questioning of the arson investigator did not violate the right to present a defense, and that the unpreserved evidentiary and prosecutorial-misconduct claims did not warrant relief. The sentencing phase was fundamentally affected by admitting local victims’ identities and evidence of dismissed charges. Cunningham, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have found the cross-examination restriction harmless and would not have reversed the sentencing phase.