A Simple Guide to the Court System

The court system is organized in levels that handle different kinds of disputes and the seriousness of offenses. Local or district courts often manage traffic matters, misdemeanors, and small civil claims; trial courts of general jurisdiction (often called circuit or superior courts) hear felonies, larger civil cases, and family matters; intermediate appellate courts review potential legal errors from trials; and the state supreme court is the final arbiter on state-law issues. Along the way, judges oversee procedure and apply the law, juries (when used) decide facts, and clerks, prosecutors, defense counsel, and civil attorneys each play defined roles.

Most cases follow a predictable path: an initial filing (criminal charge or civil complaint), service and the first appearance or answer, followed by discovery, motion practice, and conferences. Many matters resolve through plea negotiations, mediation, or settlement. If not, they proceed to a hearing or trial—bench or jury—where evidence is presented and a verdict or judgment is issued. Afterward, there may be sentencing (in criminal cases), post-trial motions, and an appeal within strict deadlines. Timelines vary by case type and court rules, so staying organized, meeting deadlines, and communicating with counsel are crucial.

Law Thoughts

“Your Right to Privacy in your Kentucky Home” 

As Kentuckians, we enjoy a right to privacy under our state constitution and common law that EXCEEDS that which is provided under the U.S. Constitution. Too few Kentuckians know this

The very first section of the Bill of Rights to the Kentucky Constitution is beautiful both in form and legal implication. Kentuckians' expectations in this life as described in our commonwealth's constitution are as follows:


First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties.

Second: The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.

Third: The right of seeking and pursuing their safety and happiness.

Fourth: The right of freely communicating their thoughts and opinions.

Fifth: The right of acquiring and protecting property.

Sixth: The right of assembling together in a peaceable manner for their common good, and of applying to those invested with the power of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.

Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.


Kentucky's statutes and common law essentially "shield" one's home. If a trespasser enters our homes, we may stand our ground and use force, including deadly force, if we reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony involving the use of force, subject to conditions.

Kentucky homeowners have the benefit of a presumption that a person using deadly force against an intruder has a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm if the intruder is unlawfully and forcibly entering or has entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. This presumption applies if the person using force knows or has reason to believe that such an unlawful and forcible entry is occurring or has occurred.

The presumption DOES NOT arise if a "peace officer [is] performing official duties."

You can't lawfully use deadly force against a mere trespasser or an intruder. You can't assert this defense if it was objectively unreasonable for you to do so or if the homeowner's use of force is disproportionate to the force applied by the assailant.

These laws (codified in the Kentucky Revised Statutes Section 503.055 et seq) reinforce Kentucky's clear intention that truly, your home should be "your castle" and woe betide those who enter without permission and threaten you.

Also, the legislature cannot invade the privacy of a citizen’s life and regulate his conduct in matters in which he alone is concerned, or prohibit him any liberty, the exercise of which will not directly injure society. Commonwealth v. Campbell, 133 Ky. 50, 117 S.W. 383, 1909 Ky. LEXIS 169 (Ky. 1909).

Kentucky courts have ruled that "private vices" that do not directly impact society are beyond the reach of the law if those vices were kept private.

The Court in Commonwealth v. Wasson stated, "immorality in private which does not operate to the detriment of others, is placed beyond the reach of state action by the guarantees of liberty in the Kentucky Constitution."

The Wasson Court also stated, that "the power of a State to regulate and control the conduct of a private individual is confined to those cases where his conduct injuriously affects others. With his faults or weaknesses which he keeps to himself, and which do not operate to the detriment of others, the State as such has no concern. In other words, the police power may be called into play when it is reasonably necessary to protect the public health or public morals or public safety."

The Campbell Court said it best: "The theory of our government is to allow the largest liberty to the individual commensurate with the public safety, or as it has been otherwise expressed, that government is best which governs the least."

If the Kentucky Legislature has enacted "stand your ground" laws and the courts have acknowledged private, even "private vices" performed in one's home that aren’t injurious to others or affect the public welfare to be beyond the reach of the state, it's fairly apparent that the right to privacy within the home was intended to be EXTREMELY BROAD.

A trespasser on one’s property is one who is there without permission who enters or goes upon the real estate of another without any right, lawful authority, or invitation. Under U.S. law, including the law of Kentucky, a police officer who enters private property without probable cause, a search warrant, or an applicable exception to the warrant requirement is generally considered a trespasser. The next time you see a police officer on your property macing your dog (which I have seen performed on homeowner surveillance by officers with neither probable cause nor a warrant) or, God forbid, shooting your pet (which I have seen), tell them to get the hell off your property if they have no probable cause or a warrant. If they persist without an exception in place, that “officer” is a trespasser just as much as a burglar. Does that mean a Kentucky homeowner can stand her ground against a law enforcement officer unlawfully on one’s property without a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstance? Absolutely, it does.

Therefore, we should be proud to have such liberties in this country. Our country was born of revolution from tyranny. Neither excessive authority nor the value judgments of others on purely private matters belong in the realm of your private property. Therefore, stand your ground. Don’t apologize for your private conduct. Know where you stand on your own property and don’t back down.  

But don’t only stand your ground against home invaders. Stand your ground against every damn busybody, rubbernecker, or intermeddler who wishes to use the law as a mechanism to enforce his or her own moral values when your purely private conduct does not harm others or society.

We are given these privileges—use them.