Skaggs v. Redford
This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.
 |
This Open Records and Transparency Project article is a sprout. You can help us collect information about this case, and other important FOIA cases across the country, by expanding this article. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sunshine Laws |
| How to Make Records Requests |
| Sunshine Litigation |
| Sorted by State, Year and Topic |
| Sunshine Nuances |
| Deliberative Process Exemption |
Skaggs v. Redford was a case before the Kentucky Supreme Court in 1992 concerning criminal prosecution records.
Important precedents
This case established that the exemption for police investigatory files which could result in litigation, found in Kentucky Open Records Act statute 61.878(1)(g), extended until the full sentence of the criminal in question was served or the individual was fully acquitted.
Background
- Skaggs was convicted of the murder of two individuals and sentenced to death. Once all his opportunities to appeal were exhausted, Skaggs submitted a records request to Redford, the attorney who prosecuted his case, requesting the entire case file.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the district attorney.
- Skaggs appealed the decision.[1]
Ruling of the court
The trial court ruled in favor, arguing that the court system had established separate rules for discovery which exempted the documents in question. The court base this argument on the separation of powers and the statute within the Kentucky Open Records Act, state 61.878(1)(k) which exempts documents that are exempted in other state statutes.[1]
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and ruled in favor of the attorney.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court but under a different exception. The Supreme Court decided that the records act exemption 61.878(1)(g), which exempts law enforcement records when there is a potential for pending legal action, applied to this particular case. The court felt that the states potential for legal action extended until the individuals "sentence has been carried out"[1]. Based on this argument, the court affirmed the final decision of the trial court and ordered the documents exempt. However, the Supreme Court did go on to overrule the argument of the trial court, claiming that the factual aspects of the case should be available under the Kentucky Open Records Act and all aspects that constituted legal tactics and information which would fall under attorney-client privilege exemptions should be redacted, assuming the sentence has been carried out.[1]
