The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District delivered a gift on Christmas Eve to both the Missouri Supreme Court and the Missouri Legislature in its unanimous decision on Lamar Johnson’s appeal.
Appellate Judges Robert M. Clayton III, Robert G. Dowd Jr. and Roy L. Richter gave the Missouri Supreme Court an opportunity to make history and gave the Missouri Legislature direction on writing a statute that, if enacted, would make it easier to do justice on new cases like this.
“This is the first case challenging a conviction based on an investigation by the recently established Conviction Integrity Unit of the City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office,” the appellate court ruled in a crisply written, tightly argued 11-page opinion.
“Following an investigation into Lamar Johnson’s 1995 murder conviction, Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner filed a motion for new trial claiming there was newly discovered evidence demonstrating his innocence.”
This is a new thing in Missouri (and, the court notes, around the country): a reform-oriented prosecutor using state resources to review old convictions and act in the interests of someone the office previously had convicted.
Its newness has caused problems for Gardner in trying to secure what she believes is justice for Johnson. The trial court, presided over by Circuit Judge Elizabeth B. Hogan, appeared surprised to find a prosecutor filing on behalf of someone her office had convicted (albeit when Dee Joyce-Hayes was circuit attorney, establishing many of the practices that Gardner is trying to reform).
The circuit court ordered Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt to represent the state’s interest in the case. Schmitt argued that there is no procedural option for Johnson to get a new trial in state court, and the court dismissed the motion because it lacked procedural authority to hear it. After a complex flurry of appeals and cross-appeals, the matter appeared before the appellate court.
The appellate court also dismissed the matter on procedural grounds — finding it “not appealable” — while essentially outlining for the state Legislature the kind of statute that could be passed that would give the court standing in future cases challenged by the circuit attorney’s Conviction Integrity Unity.
The appellate court also gave a Christmas gift to the Missouri Supreme Court by transferring the case and with it the opportunity — which reads like a challenge — to make history. The conclusion of this important ruling deserves to be quoted in full.
“The issues in this case are undeniably important and include questions fundamental
to our criminal justice system: whether and to what extent an elected prosecutor has a duty to correct wrongful convictions in her jurisdiction; whether and to what extent there is or should be a mechanism for her to exercise that duty; whether and to what extent the limitations of any such mechanism (such as the Rule 29.11 timelines) impact a trial court’s authority to consider the matter or the statutory right to appeal a trial court’s ruling on the matter; and whether and to what extent the Attorney General has or should have a role in that process,” the court ruled.
“The resolution of these issues is of obvious import and general interest throughout this State. But the case has also garnered national attention given the numerous jurisdictions with conviction integrity units facing similar questions of significance to the administration of justice in those states. Moreover, resolution of these issues may require reexamination of existing law. Under these circumstances, we find transfer appropriate.”
Now it is up to the Missouri Supreme Court to determine whether its own rules allow or prohibit the relief requested by the prosecutor for Johnson. The Supreme Court has the authority to establish a rule of procedure that explicitly authorizes the trial court to hear the prosecutor’s motion to reopen the case and grant a new trial. This, legal observers believe, would be essential to preserving faith in the criminal justice system where there is a plausible claim by a new prosecutor that a previously convicted person is actually innocent.
