A Missouri judge sided with the St. Louis city public defender’s office in the heated lawsuit against Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce’s office, regarding withholding witnesses’ contact information.
On Aug. 31, Judge Gael Wood of Franklin County ordered that city prosecutors must provide public defenders with the last-known addresses of witnesses who don’t have protective orders and to stop redacting information from evidence without permission from a judge. For 10 years, Joyce’s office has maintained a practice of withholding the information necessary for defenders to contact witnesses – without obtaining protective orders from the court, according to Wood’s order.
“The foregoing acts and refusals to act are all to the manifest injury of [the public defender] and who [the public defender] defends,” Wood wrote.
Joyce has a “non-discretionary duty” to comply with the Missouri Supreme Court Rule 25.03, Wood wrote, which requires prosecutors to hand over police reports, last-known addresses of witnesses and victims, and all written reports and oral statements within 10 days.
However, city prosecutors say they have a “constitutional and ethical responsibility” to protect the victims and witnesses who participate in the criminal justice system, according to a statement from Joyce’s office released after Wood’s decision.
“We currently comply with all our legal obligations under the Missouri Constitution and the Missouri Supreme Court rules,” according to Joyce’s statement. “We respectfully disagree with this judge’s opinion, and we will appeal this decision because it’s the right thing to do.”
When Wood heard the case on July 7 at the Carnahan Courthouse, he told the prosecutors that Joyce’s office has been practicing “civil disobedience” for more than 10 years.
“Even though you think you’re right, it’s kind of civil disobedience,” said. “But I’m not sure if the prosecutor’s office should be engaged in disobeying the rules simply because they think it’s wrong.”
Wood was brought in from Union, Missouri to hear the lawsuit after St. Louis city judges – who work closely with both legal offices daily – recused themselves.
At the July 7 hearing, Public Defender’s Office Director Mary Fox argued that without the addresses of witnesses, public defenders can’t interview witnesses and investigate their cases properly. They are then forced to file “motions to compel,” which slows down the process considerably, she said. The 22nd Circuit Court (which covers the city) has long been criticized for not moving cases along fast enough, resulting in some people waiting years in jail for hearings.
City prosecutors countered that automatically handing over the information violates the victim’s rights the under Article 32 of the Missouri Constitution, which gives victims the “right to reasonable protection from the defendant.”
Prosecutors have withheld the information because they believe turning over their social security numbers and addresses could put victims and witnesses in danger, said Rachel Smith, chief prosecutor of the circuit attorney’s Community Partnership Bureau. The court rule never intended to include people’s identifying information, she told The St. Louis American.
The tension between the offices escalated after Fox filed the suit about a year ago. Now the situation has become “ridiculous,” Wood said, causing a “law jam that needs to be circumvented.”
Currently, 123 cases are held up in the Court of Appeals as a result of the clash – meaning these individuals’ cases can’t move forward until the two offices’ conflict is resolved.
The “law jam” started in April, when Circuit Court Judge Michael Mullen, who leads the Criminal Assignment Division, denied 14 of prosecutors’ requests for protective orders – or permission to withhold the victim’s identifying information from defense attorneys. When Mullen did that, Joyce’s office filed a writ of mandamus against Mullen, and now the Court of Appeals is looking into whether his decision was valid.
Rick Kroeger, deputy district director of the public defender’s office, told The American that the public defenders are just trying to conduct a complete investigation for their clients – and that’s hard to do when they can’t contact witnesses.
“No matter who you are, you should have the rights that the system provides,” Kroeger said. “We just want to make sure our clients have the best defense.”
Follow this reporter on Twitter @RebeccaRivas.
