We are encouraged by a clarification that Judge Michael Manners made in court on Monday during the first day of the Reginald Clemons evidentiary hearing and by two questions he asked from the bench.
At one point Judge Manners interrupted Missouri Assistant Attorney General Susan Boresi, who is ably litigating the hearing for the state. Boresi was attempting to distance Thomas Cummins’ police brutality claim, which resulted in an $150,000 settlement, from Clemons’ police brutality claim, which was disregarded by the original trial judge, who permitted Clemons’ coerced confession to be used against him in a capital trial.
Judge Manners corrected Boresi on the spot to point out that one detective, Chris Pappas, interrogated both Cummins and Clemons. This shows that Judge Manners knows this case in detail and is taking seriously Clemons’ claim of police brutality, which the trial judge rejected. If Judge Manners concludes that Clemons’ confession was involuntary, then he would be compelled to advise the Missouri Supreme Court, which appointed him as Special Master on the case, to throw out Clemons’ 1993 conviction and order a new trial.
At another point, Judge Manners interrupted Jeanene Moenckmeier, one of Clemons’ original trial attorneys. She had been called to the stand to testify about a troubling piece of evidence that prosecutor Nels Moss was requested to provide in Clemons’ jury trail but never did turn over to the defense. It is a copy of a draft police report on Cummins, the first suspect in the 1991 murders of Julie and Robin Kerry who became the prosecution’s star witness. Moss admitted in court to hand-correcting the draft police report, dated May 6, 1991. Most of Moss’ changes, which made Cummins look less guilty and more credible, were made in the final police report, dated May 31, 1991, that was entered into evidence in Clemons’ jury trial.
“Did you have a copy of the May 6 report?” Judge Manners interrupted to ask Moenckmeier. She said, “No.” Judge Manners followed up, “Was the May 6 report introduced in court?” She said, “No.”
This suggests that Judge Manners takes very seriously the fact that a prosecutor would tamper with a police report in a capital trial and then withhold evidence of his tampering when asked to provide it to the defense.
It seems to us evident that, whatever one believes actually happened on the Chain of Rocks Bridge on the tragic night of April 4, 1991, a trial where a prosecutor is allowed to change a police report to benefit his case, and then not provide that evidence to the defense, is not a trial whose verdict should be respected. Again, if Judge Manners takes Moss’ prosecutorial misconduct as seriously as his questions from the bench suggest, then he should be compelled to advise the Missouri Supreme Court to grant Clemons a new – and fair – trial.
Whatever findings and guidance Judge Manners provides to the higher court, we advise that the City of St. Louis, the Circuit Attorney’s Office and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department look at the shameful misconduct of Moss and the detectives who worked this case and promise our community, “Never again.”
