lacy bedingfield

Cause of Conviction: ​Rape
County: Fayette
Trial/Plea: Trial
Race: African-American
Year 1996
Sentence: 25
Time Served: 14
Date Sentence Vacated: September 11, 2007
Reason Sentence Vacated: ​DNA testing; Perjury
Cause of Wrongful Conviction: Coerced Confession; Improper Forensic Evidence; Perjury​

​​Bedingfield was convicted of the rape of his girlfriend’s daughter’s friend and of being a persistent felony offender in 1996. He served 12 years of a 25-year sentence before his release in 2008. Bedingfield, his girlfriend, her daughter, and the complaining witness were together at Bedingfield’s girlfriend’s house on the night of the offense. Later that evening, the complaining witness was found by police wearing only a t-shirt, shaken and upset. She claimed that Bedingfield had raped her.

A rape kit was taken from the complaining witness, and Bedingfield was ordered to submit to an examination. During the examination, he was told that a swab would be inserted in to his penis. He became agitated and upset, and told one of the officers that he would tell them he did it if they would not insert the swab into his penis. The officers agreed, and Bedingfield stated that he had engaged in consensual sex with the complaining witness, and that he did not know she was underage.

Evidence recovered from the rape kit showed the presence of semen on the complaining witness' clothes and on her vaginal swab. Though the quantity was not sufficient for testing with the technology available at the time, much was made of the fact that semen was found during trial. Bedingfield testified that he had spurned the complaining witness’ sexual advances earlier in the evening, and that he had confessed to having sex with her only to avoid having a swab inserted into his penis. Bedingfield’s counsel argued that the complaining witness could have been engaged in sexual intercourse with another earlier in the day, but that argument was belittled as “bizarre” by the Commonwealth. The jury ultimately convicted Bedingfield. 

In 2005, DNA testing was done on the physical evidence, and the test results excluded Bedingfield as the source of the physical evidence found in the victim’s rape kit and on her clothes. Rather, the evidence showed that the complaining witness had engaged in sexual intercourse with three different men prior to the incident.

Despite the exonerating value of the test results, the trial court denied Bedingfield’s motion for a new trial. The Kentucky Court of Appeals also denied Bedingfield’s motion. However, in a unanimous decision in a case of first impression, the Kentucky Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court for a new trial in 2008.

On remand, the Commonwealth continued to maintain that Bedingfield was guilty of rape, but agreed to permit Bedingfield to plead to a lesser offense in exchange for time served.​