BECKLEY, W.V. (LOOTPRESS) – A Raleigh County woman charged with the 2014 murder of a 76-year-old will await her September 2021 trial date in Southern Regional Jail after violating the conditions of her home confinement.
Jessica Lunceford was charged with the murder of Slyvia Jean Washington in 2019, nearly five years after Washington’s death. Lunceford was acting as Washington’s caretaker at the time of her death.
In March of 2019, Lunceford was granted bond and placed on home confinement. Judge H. L. Kirkpatrick III stated that Lunceford was placed on home confinement because she was charged five years after the alleged murder and because, during that time, she did not try to flee the county or break any laws.
In May of 2021, Lunceford’s bond was revoked due to unpaid bond fees.
After reviewing the case, Hatfield discovered that Lunceford owed more than $2,300 in home confinement arrears and had not made a payment since December of 2019.
Judge Kirkpatrick revoked Lunceford’s home confinement, and she was incarcerated until her bond fees were paid. Lunceford paid the bond fees and was released from jail and placed back on home confinement.
During Lunceford’s bond revocation hearing on Tuesday, July 6, 2021, Raleigh County Prosecuting Attorney Benjamin Hatfield, who represents the State of West Virginia in this case, stated that, after noticing the unpaid bond fees, he also noticed that Lunceford had not been drug tested while on home confinement since she was first bonded in 2019.
Lunceford was tested by the Home Confinement Office on June 9, 2021, and was placed in incarceration on that day.
On June 15, 2021, lab results furnished by the Raleigh County Day Report Center and the Home Confinement Office showed that Lunceford had tested positive for cocaine, which is in direct violation of the conditions of home confinement. This led Hatfield to file a second motion for bond revocation.
Lunceford was held at Southern Regional Jail for more than 20 days before the court released her on the basis that the state lacked the authority to keep her incarcerated. She was released last week.
On Tuesday, defense attorney Tim Lupardus stated that they were arguing for the dismissal of the state’s proposed bond revocation due to a lack of due process of law.
Lupardus stated that Lunceford was incarcerated days before the test results could be furnished. He also said no hearing was scheduled prior to Lunceford’s incarceration, which put her protected liberties into question.
“This is a clear violation of due process,” Lupardus said to Judge Kirkpatrick. “The government failed to apply the due process obligations placed upon it.”
He continued, stating that because his client sat in jail for 21 days on alleged charges and wasn’t brought to the judge before being incarcerated that the bond revocation motion should be dismissed.
He further explained that it wasn’t Lunceford’s fault that she wasn’t routinely drug tested by the Home Confinement Office and that her incarceration prior to trial would prove difficult for her and her council to communicate.
Hatfield, who had two witnesses ready to testify against Lunceford, countered, stating that Lunceford was released from jail as timely as could be managed. He noted that it took 13 days after the test date for his office to procure the lab results and also mentioned that every prosecutor was away at an annual training during that time.
“The State of West Virginia didn’t just let her sit in incarceration for a prolonged period,” he said.
He also stated that regardless of a lack of testing, Lunceford has now broken two of the three major conditions of her home confinement.
“This court afforded the defendant the ability to be on home confinement condition to her bond…For whatever reason, Miss Lunceford got a free pass on a lot of ordinary obligations of home confinement. I just don’t think this defendant has treated the court’s order like a defendant charged with a capital crime who was afforded the opportunity to not spend the entirety of the pre-trial process in incarceration in Southern Regional Jail. She needs to be placed in jail until trial in September.”
While Judge Kirkpatrick agreed that scheduling conflicts had become an issue, he denied the defense’s request to dismiss the bond revocation, stating that he believes the court acted as quickly and as practical as possible under the circumstances.
Judge Kirkpatrick continued, explaining that because Lunceford tested positive for an illicit substance, which she not only used but purchased, and thereby directly violated her home confinement, he would grant the revocation of her bond and condition of home confinement.
Lunceford’s trial is currently scheduled for the September term of court. She will remain incarcerated at Southern Regional Jail until that time.