Who Will Speak for Karen Brown?: Lean into Kentucky’s Best Kept Secret.

Before there was the gavel-to-gavel coverage of Court TV on July 1, 1991, there was minimal transparency or real understanding of the legal process by the average person. That innovation gave us access to the legal system by bringing its dramas and intricacies into our living rooms. We ushered in an era that altered public perception while introducing new levels of transparency — and arguable entertainment. With this, we learned more about the Menendez brothers, OJ Simpson, Rodney King, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, and William Kennedy Smith.

What about Kentucky? In November of 2024, Governor Andy Beshear introduced his My New Kentucky Home initiative. Beshear said Kentucky is moving forward together — “we’re not looking at the same Kentucky anymore,” that “now is the time to reintroduce ourselves to the world to leave the stereotypes of the past behind us and welcome the world to our New Kentucky Home.” He promises to stay laser focused on real-life worries of Kentuckians, including good jobs, affordable and accessible health care, safer roads, the best public education, and safer communities.

Importantly, the governor asks: do we make more room at our tables or in our prisons? Well, Governor, I’m glad you asked.

Kentucky is one of the few states that does not currently have any Second Look Laws and has been taking no initiative whatsoever to introduce such laws.

What Are Second Look Laws?

Second Look Laws, or resentencing laws, allow courts to revisit and potentially modify sentences after a person has served a significant portion of their prison term. These laws are designed to address lengthy sentences, particularly those imposed during the tough-on-crime era, and to consider such factors as an individual’s rehabilitation and maturity while incarcerated. They also pick up where Parole Boards have failed and where old-boy networks may have applied their own forms of justice.

Even Ray “the D.A.” Larson, once quoted in the Herald Leader as saying “here we have once again the parole board determining what a sentence is, instead of the jury that recommended the sentence or the judge who imposed the sentence. They are not elected: they’re political appointees” — further calling it “Kentucky’s sentencing scam.” Larson had his own habit of changing narratives to fit his personal agenda, but he pulled no punches on calling out the inconsistencies in Kentucky’s sentencing system.

Draconian sentencing practices fueled by the height of mass incarceration continue to take their toll on the citizens of Kentucky. Not having a streamlined process to look at former sentencing practices is costing Kentucky money, resources, and safer communities. As prisons gray — as the elderly population grows — the costs, ethical implications, and human rights concerns mount. A life without parole removes any discretion to release people at exactly the juncture that society would benefit most: when the incarcerated person is elderly, no longer a risk, and at the end of their capacity to cause harm. In Kentucky, serve-outs have not been exclusively reserved for the worst of the worst. They have been imposed on people who did not even commit murder. The inconsistencies on who the Kentucky Parole Board grants conditional release to are costing taxpayers — over $47,000 annually to incarcerate one woman at KCIW, according to the Kentucky Department of Corrections’ own Cost to Incarcerate F24 Report — while Kentucky’s incarceration rate of 889 per 100,000 people exceeds that of any independent democratic nation on earth.

As I hear recent cases highlighted with the backing of evidence-based practices — Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro commuting the sentences of Marie Scott, incarcerated for over 50 years, and Danielle Hadley, incarcerated for 38-plus years; the Menendez brothers’ sentences reduced to 50 years to life — I can’t help but think of Karen Brown.

Who Is Karen Brown?

Karen Brown has been one of Kentucky’s best kept secrets. Not only a secret but a voice locked away for nearly 40 years, amidst a media frenzy that twisted and turned the narrative for sensationalism. But no more. As a nationally growing group of supporters continues to rise, her voice is starting to garner attention.

Karen Brown has been incarcerated since 1986, when she was 21 years old, a time when she was emerging into adulthood. She received a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 25 years. This was prior to Court TV, as the nation was beginning its obsession with crime, murder, and court drama. Karen’s case drew national attention from Central Kentucky. It was one of the most infamous cases in Kentucky, taking place in Lexington. It was prosecuted as a murder-for-hire by the victim’s wife, alleged lover and drag performer (Karen), and another co-worker for insurance money. In reality, Karen was the unknowing target of an opportunity by the victim’s wife — the fall guy for a sinister plan. A trial that became a media circus, with daily crowds on the courthouse lawn attending a packed courtroom, that swiftly produced a gag order.

Fast forward 39-plus years. Karen has gone from serving a life sentence with the possibility of parole to having been given a serve-out. In 2021, the Kentucky Parole Board changed Karen Brown’s sentence to serve the rest of her natural life locked away with no more opportunities at freedom, short of clemency or additional court action. In effect, the Kentucky Parole Board has sentenced Karen to death — a sentence that in 1986 a judge and jury voted against and refused to give her.

Prior to incarceration, Karen Brown did not have so much as a speeding ticket. She had been an outstanding student and athlete, active in sports, student council, and the national honor society until an injury contributed to a change in her path. The rehabilitation and true story of Karen Brown is one that would put to shame the previous attempts of numerous sensationalized crime shows, podcasts, articles, and even a book that sold over 100,000 copies — all of which regurgitated false narratives. We’ve not only failed Karen and her family. We’ve failed ourselves and the victims as a result as well.

Karen was never the big-time drug dealer drag star seducing a married woman that the prosecution made her out to be. She had no knowledge of her co-defendant’s plans. In fact, Karen was never a couple with her co-defendant and had only known her for 2 months and 6 days the night of the crime. Karen has also never denied the consequences her alcohol and drug use during that brief period of her life had caused and has taken responsibility for her recovery, sobriety, and rehabilitation through mutual supports guided by her faith.

The 2001 Ruling — and What the Parole Board Did With It

In 1997, Karen filed an RCr 11.42 motion to vacate her conviction arguing ineffective counsel. In 1999, the court overruled her motion without a hearing. In 2001, a panel of the court reversed and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. After two and a half days and 17 witnesses, Honorable Judge Gary Payne entered an order sustaining Brown’s RCr 11.42 motion to vacate or set aside her conviction.

Prior to the serve-out, Karen had received one institutional ticket in 35-plus years of incarceration — for giving a close friend a kiss upon hearing that friend had been granted a pardon by then-Governor Steve Beshear. Two Kentucky Parole Board hearings later, even since her serve-out, she has had no additional tickets.

Before every board hearing, a media frenzy ensued to garner attention to keep Karen Brown locked up. According to the Lexington Herald Leader, not only did prosecuting attorney Ray Larson attend a victim impact hearing, but so did the presiding trial Judge Armand Angelucci — which lends itself to questions about conventional and unconventional influence in old Kentucky. Judge Angelucci told the Parole Board: “I saw these two girls. They looked cold. They looked determined. They had crocodile tears.” He recalled the relationship between Elizabeth Turpin and Karen Brown, saying “people stood in line to get in the courthouse to hear this trash, this filth,” and characterized Turpin as “probably the most evil, manipulative woman that I’ve ever prosecuted.” He told the Board that 11 jurors had voted for the death penalty and only one had abstained. Elizabeth Turpin and Karen Brown were sentenced separately, making that characterization misleading as applied to Karen.

The 2021 Serve-Out: Applying the Wrong Factors

Let’s look at the Kentucky Parole Board’s January 2021 hearing, conducted by Ms. Ladeidra N. Jones and Ms. Brenda Beers-Reineke. Simply put, Karen was given a serve-out. There were no remarks providing why she was not a good parole risk. No recommendations were checked regarding educational, substance abuse, mental health, or other programming. Simply put, she was cited for: “Serve Out Time Life Sentence Current MIN,” “Seriousness,” “Violence Involved,” “Life Taken,” “Crime involved firearm/deadly weapon or instrument.” These were all static risk factors that could never change through any amount of rehabilitation, real or imagined.

During Karen’s final parole board hearing, she was not provided time to fully understand and was unable to complete her answers without constant interruptions by Jones. Video of the hearing — now reportedly unavailable through public records — would confirm the aggressive nature in which Jones conducted herself and the inappropriate prejudicial comments made throughout. Jones questioned Karen about “some official version” of her crime. Karen had not been permitted to provide any testimony at her original trial. She only knew the true version — the version she was present for and witnessed. It was that true version she testified to, along with 17 witnesses, in the RCr 11.42 hearing in which Judge Gary Payne set aside her conviction entirely.

There was no acknowledgment of her very low risk assessment from the Kentucky Department of Corrections. The Parole Board failed to follow its own policies and procedures or meet the guidelines instituted by the General Assembly. A judicial system that claims to value rehabilitation would have considered a record that included, among other things: no prior record, one category write-up in 35 years, good staff reports, no drug usage during incarceration, no violent behaviors, no mental health instabilities, a Master’s Degree in Education earned during incarceration, strong community support letters, and solid re-entry plans. Nothing showing any detriment to public safety.

In parole consideration, Kentucky statutes create a presumption of release and an expectation of parole if there are no findings to justify deferral. Kentucky’s parole procedures use “shall” not “may” in their language. The Board failed to apply one or more relevant factors when denying parole, as their own policy requires. Karen’s case calls into question factors of misconduct and procedural errors under KY-PB 1000 F (3)(a)(b) and KY-PB 10-01H and K, extended to subsection L.

First: a presiding trial judge appearing at a parole board hearing to argue against release raises serious questions about impartiality and judicial ethics. Does that speak to a judge who maintained the fairness and adherence to ethical obligations required of the bench? Second: there was no sexual relationship established between the co-defendants at trial because there was none. Third: the parole board is not empowered to impose harsher outcomes than the legislature and courts already established. The Kentucky Parole Board lacks legal authority to issue serve-outs removing parole eligibility in cases where the legislature and courts have said parole eligibility exists.