• Home
• News
• Obituaries
• Sports
• AP
• Services
• Citizen News
• Events
• FindKYJobs
• Classifieds
• Buy Photos
• E-Edition
• Subscribe
• Homes
• Marketplace
• Feedback

Appeals court to rule on 1994 DiGiuro slaying

Print Story    |    Comments    |   

The Court of Appeals will decide if the $63.3 million awarded to Trent DiGiuro’s family from Shane Ragland, who was convicted of killing him, was excessive and if the wrongful death lawsuit was filed in a timely manner.

A Fayette County jury found Ragland liable in DiGiuro’s death and awarded the family $60 million in punitive damages and $3.3 million in compensatory damages for lost income and funeral expenses in 2008. 

Lawyers for Ragland and the DiGiuros argued the issues in a one-hour hearing before the appeals court Thursday. 

Trent DiGiuro was a University of Kentucky offensive lineman and Ragland, a Frankfort native, was convicted in 2007 in his 1994 shooting death.

The civil suit for damages was filed after Ragland, son of wealthy Frankfort businessman Jerry Ragland, pleaded guilty to second-degree manslaughter in a plea deal in 2007.

 Shane Ragland had been convicted of DiGuiro’s murder in 2002, but the state Supreme Court overturned that decision and threw out the case based on faulty ballistics evidence.

David Broderick, Ragland’s attorney, argued that the Court of Appeals had set a precedent in the statute of limitations in wrongful death suits.

One case Broderick quoted involved a woman who sued Kentucky State Police over the death of her grandson, but the case was dismissed because the statute of limitations expired after one year.

However, the Court of Appeals disagreed and said action could be taken up to two years after a death.

Broderick said Mike DiGiuro, Trent DiGiuro’s father, didn’t file a wrongful death suit until 2008, about 14 years after his son’s death.

However, Judge William Harris said the case Broderick mentioned didn’t deal with a homicide.

“It didn’t, but it said the statutory regulation was not met,” Broderick replied. He said the DiGiuros could’ve filed a wrongful death suit within a year of their son’s shooting death without naming a defendant.

Thomas Conway, Mike DiGiuro’s attorney, said there’s no timing issue in the case because the DiGiuros didn’t know who killed their son until Ragland pleaded guilty in 2007, and naming him as a defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit while his trial moved through the legal process would’ve been easy fodder for Ragland’s defense.

“It’s public policy in the commonwealth ... to wait until a conviction of a defendant before filing a suit,” Conway said. 

“We still operate under the presumption of innocence.”

Judge Glenn Acree asked Conway of the possibility of filing a suit naming an unknown defendant.

Conway said he didn’t believe the DiGiuros had to take that action and argued the statute of limitations began after Ragland’s conviction.

Broderick also argued against what he called excessive damages the jury awarded the DiGiuro family. 

Broderick said the jury award of $60 million punitive damages and $3 million in for compensatory, which equates to an 18-to-1 ratio, doesn’t follow the court’s pattern of single digits for such numerical comparisons.

Broderick cited cases in which a higher state court amended the amount of damages deemed excessive.

Acree said there are some rare cases in which double-digit ratios are awarded, and the court hasn’t found the practice improper.

Broderick argued that Ragland pleaded guilty to second-degree manslaughter, and state law doesn’t recognize that as a premeditated crime.

In response, Conway described in detail how Ragland laid in wait with his father’s scoped “varmint” rifle about 50 yards away from Trent DiGiuro’s rental house in Lexington as he celebrated his upcoming 21st birthday. 

Ragland, Conway said, waited until DiGiuro came outside and shot him in the head through his ear. Testimony revealed that Ragland shot DiGiuro because he’d blackballed him from a fraternity.

“This is the most reprehensible crime committed in Kentucky in my lifetime,” Conway told the three judges, a panel representing the full appellate court.

Conway said the jury correctly considered the nature of the crime when it awarded the $63 million to DiGiuro’s family.

After the attorneys finished their arguments, Harris said the judges would review the matter and render an opinion “as quickly as we can.”

This marks the second time Ragland and the DiGiuro’s family have found themselves in the state appellate court. 

The first involved Ragland’s murder conviction, which ultimately made its way to the state Supreme Court. The civil case could wind up in the higher court after the appellate court’s opinion.

Mike DiGiuro’s and his wife, Ann, sat in the courtroom near their attorneys. Ragland didn’t appear in court.

Ragland was last known to be in Pennsylvania, where he picked up a charge of driving under the influence.