On the night of April 30, 2021, Rolandas Paradnikas, a 43-year-old man of Lithuanian origin, was returning home in a Kentucky neighborhood. While his wife and a 13-year-old son awaited his arrival, an armed confrontation began with a citizen wielding a 22-caliber firearm and an iron bar. The assailant fired five shots into Paradnikas’s chest and abdomen. After the gunfire, the attacker struck Paradnikas with the iron bar, causing a concussion from the impact and ultimately leading to the victim’s death.
The suspect, Arunas A., also 43 and of Lithuanian origin, appeared before the people’s jury and denied harming Paradnikas or even seeing him on the night in question. During questioning from the prosecutor, however, he acknowledged the possibility that personal tensions related to the deceased’s partner could be connected to the events. The defense suggested alleged mistreatment by the partner, presenting this context as part of the contested motive. The jury was asked to consider these factors as they weighed the crime and its justification within the case.
According to the defense, Arunas fled to his homeland three days after Paradnikas’s death. In court, he stated, “He was a bad person for hitting her.” He offered a restrained response to a message he had allegedly sent to the widow, claiming he felt no true remorse and later clarified through an interpreter that no admission of the crime was made in that communication. Beyond these remarks, the defendant consistently denied other pieces of testimony or claimed lack of memory regarding them.
The prosecutor’s office sought a sentence of fifteen and a half years, proposing fourteen years for murder and an additional one and a half years for illegal weapon possession, with aggravating circumstances due to abuse of authority or other situational factors suggested by the case. This request reflected a view that the act constituted intentional homicide under the circumstances presented by the evidence.
Meanwhile, the special prosecutor’s office contended that the conduct should be classified as murder with aggravating elements that included treachery, given the sudden and treacherous nature of the attack and the victim’s lack of opportunity to defend himself. Their recommended penalty was twenty years for murder along with a two-year sentence for illegal possession of weapons.
Arunas’s defense maintained innocence and pressed for his release, arguing that the defendant was not with the victim on the night in question. Since his detention in August 2021, the defense has argued that the charges rely primarily on testimony from the deceased’s partner, who later claimed a relationship with Arunas and appeared to offer inconsistent accounts of the events. The defense contends that this testimony should not be considered decisive without corroborating evidence.
During today’s jury hearing, all three witnesses appeared by video link. One resident, who witnessed the incident at a distance, reported hearing no sounds and observed the attacker striking the victim while he was on the ground. The witness could not identify the attacker’s face. A second neighbor also saw the attacker flee but likewise could not confirm whether it was the defendant.
A third witness, a neighbor and friend of the deceased, provided details that later pointed toward Arunas’s possible guilt. He recalled seeing the victim’s car burned and, before the incident, the victim reportedly told him that the person responsible was Arunas. The witness also described graffiti found on the wall of the deceased’s home in the days leading up to the crime, which allegedly contained a message of affection for the deceased’s partner, though the exact wording was not clear at the time of the testimony.