TOPEKA—A three-judge panel from the Kansas Court of Appeals will hear oral argument September 17 at the University of Kansas in Lawrence and the public is invited to attend.
On Tuesday, September 17, the panel will hear three cases in room 201, Green Hall, at the University of Kansas School of Law.
Judges Jacy Hurst, Lesley Ann Isherwood, and Rachel Pickering will hear oral arguments starting at 9:30 a.m. Afterward, the judges will be available to answer questions from students, faculty, and the public about the judicial branch, court procedures, the role of judges, the legal profession, and other related matters.
"The Court of Appeals is honored to travel the state for its dockets. This allows our judges to meet with Kansans across the state who are interested in the court’s work and to learn more about our state's varied beauty and industries,” Hurst said. “During our travel dockets, judges also particularly enjoy meeting with students, teachers, and administrators at all levels, from elementary to graduate school, to answer questions about the work of the judiciary. We are grateful to the communities, courts, and schools who host our dockets each month."
Oral argument
Attorneys for each side will have an opportunity to present arguments, and the judges will have a chance to ask questions. The panel will then take each case under consideration and will issue a written decision at a later date, usually within 60 days from the date of oral argument.
There are 14 judges on the Court of Appeals. Usually, they sit in panels of three to hear arguments and decide cases. In fiscal year 2022, the Court of Appeals resolved appeals in more than 1,000 cases, including 781 cases in which the court issued formal written decisions.
9:30 a.m. Tuesday, September 17
Room 201, Green Hall
University of Kansas School of Law
Lawrence
Appeal No. 126,153: Brian E. Betts v. State of Kansas
Wyandotte: (Criminal Appeal) Brian E. Betts was convicted of first-degree murder. After his conviction, his uncle, Carter Betts, recanted his testimony implicating Betts in the murder. In his current motion for postconviction relief under K.S.A. 60-1507, Betts claimed actual innocence based on new evidence of Kansas City, Kansas, Police Department Detective Roger Golubski's coercive tactics and Carter's new claim that Golubski pressured him to give false statements. Betts also claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to investigate Golubski's coercive tactics in the murder investigation and Golubski's familial relation to the murder victim. The district court denied Betts' K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, finding Carter's recantation not credible and concluding trial counsel was not ineffective. On appeal, Betts claims the district court applied too high of a burden of proof. Betts contends that he met his burden to show actual innocence and asserts that he should receive a new trial. Betts also claims trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Golubski's connections to the victim's family and Golubski's role in the murder investigation.
Appeal No. 126,312: State of Kansas v. Brian R. Cummings
Ellis: (Criminal Appeal) Brian Cummings was charged with six drug-related crimes after law enforcement executed a search warrant at his home. The search warrant was obtained after a recently arrested juvenile witness implicated Cummings in drug sale activities. The district court denied Cummings' motion to suppress the evidence found during the search, but that request was denied. Cummings was convicted after a bench trial. On appeal, he claims that the denial of his motion to suppress was erroneous because the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked a substantial basis that evidence of a crime would be found during the search. Cummings believes the Leon good-faith exception cannot save the warrant.
Appeal No. 127,030: Daniel Neuman v. Anesthesia Associates of Kansas City, P.A.
Johnson: (Civil Appeal) Daniel Neuman sued his former employer, Anesthesia Associates of Kansas City, P.A. (AAKC), asserting, among other causes of action, a defamation claim based upon AAKC's statements about the circumstances of Neuman's departure from the business. AAKC filed a motion to strike Neuman's defamation claim under the Kansas Public Speech Protection Act (KPSPA), K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5320, alleging the claim was based upon AAKC's exercise of its right to free speech as defined by the statute. The district court denied the motion for three reasons: (1) AAKC's allegedly defamatory statements were not made in connection with an issue of public interest; (2) Neuman's defamation claim fell within the statute's exception for commercial speech; and (3) Neuman established a likelihood of prevailing on his defamation claim by presenting substantial competent evidence to support a prima facie case. AAKC now seeks interlocutory review of the district court's denial of its motion to strike Neuman's defamation claim.