The materials below are provided solely for the interest and convenience of the reader, are not official Court records, and should not be quoted or cited as such. Once cases are docketed, the briefs filed by the parties typically are posted within a day or so. Summaries of the cases are prepared by the Court’s communications counsel and typically are posted the week before arguments. Audio files and information about attorneys who argued typically are posted within a day or so after arguments. Further information about the cases may be available through Case.net.
DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
9:30 a.m. Tuesday, April 14, 2020
April 10, 2020, update: Due to concerns regarding the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this argument will be conducted remotely. As is its standard practice, the Court will provide audio of the arguments, both live and archived. Anyone wishing to listen to the arguments live may do so using the Court’s “live audio streaming” button, available at https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=1975. The archived audio file will be made available later on this case summary page..
SC98303
State of Missouri v. Lamar Johnson
St. Louis
Challenges to dismissal of prosecutor’s motion for new trial alleging an unjust conviction
Listen to the oral argument: SC98303 MP3 file
Johnson was represented during arguments by Lindsay J. Runnels of Morgan Pilate LLC in Kansas City; the circuit attorney was represented by Daniel S. Harawa, a professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. The state was represented by Shaun J. Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Johnson was represented during arguments by Lindsay J. Runnels of Morgan Pilate LLC in Kansas City; the circuit attorney was represented by Daniel S. Harawa, a professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. The state was represented by Shaun J. Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
In 1994, two masked assailants shot a man to death in St. Louis. Lamar Johnson and Phillip Campbell were charged with the murder. During Johnson’s trial, the assistant circuit attorney presented testimony from an eyewitness to the shooting and an informant who had been held near Johnson at the city jail. Despite failing to identify Johnson in two police lineups, the eyewitness identified Johnson at trial as one of the shooters, explaining he previously had been afraid to do so. The informant testified he overheard Johnson talking about committing a murder. The jury found Johnson guilty of first-degree murder and armed criminal action, and he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of probation or parole. While Johnson’s direct appeal was pending, Campbell – who pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to seven years in prison – provided an affidavit stating Johnson was not involved in the shooting. He previously had written letters to Johnson explaining what happened the night of the murder, that Johnson was not involved, and that Campbell and James Howard committed the murder. Johnson moved for a new trial, contending Campbell’s statements constituted newly discovered evidence. The circuit court overruled the motion. Subsequently, Campbell, Howard and two of their associates signed affidavits explaining the circumstances leading to the murder and stating Johnson was not involved. The eyewitness recanted his identification of Johnson and signed an affidavit that he received monetary payments from the state. In 2018, the new circuit attorney’s conviction integrity unit began reviewing Johnson’s case. The circuit attorney determined there was credible evidence of Johnson’s innocence and of police and prosecutorial misconduct resulting in a wrongful conviction. In 2019, the circuit attorney filed a motion for a new trial in Johnson’s case. Johnson joined the circuit attorney’s motion. On its own motion, the circuit court appointed the attorney general to intercede in the case. Ultimately, the circuit court overruled the new trial motion, holding it lacked authority to consider it. The court found Johnson’s counsel improperly contacted jurors; the circuit attorney’s accusation of prosecutorial misconduct should have been investigated independently; and the reasons for the court’s appointment of the attorney general were moot. Johnson appeals; the circuit attorney was designated an intervenor in the appeal.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One involves whether the circuit court properly dismissed the circuit attorney’s motion for a new trial or even had authority to consider it. Related issues include whether only the defendant can file such a motion or whether the circuit attorney also can and, if so, whether Rule 29.11’s 15-day deadline for such motions applies to bar a new trial motion filed by the circuit attorney decades after the conviction. If the circuit court lacked authority to consider the circuit attorney’s new trial motion, another question involves whether extraordinary circumstances permit plain error review and warrant this Court granting relief. Related issues include whether this Court should determine that prosecutors always have the authority to file new trial motions when faced with evidence of wrongful conviction; if not, what alternative vehicle permits the circuit attorney to correct unjust convictions within her jurisdiction; and whether the circuit attorney’s motion convincingly demonstrates Johnson is actually innocent, his conviction was obtained through false or manufactured evidence, and the state concealed material exculpatory and impeachment evidence. A further question involves whether the circuit court erred in appointing the attorney general to represent the state in this case.
A number of individuals and organizations filed briefs as friends of the Court:
A group of 11 retired Missouri judges argues the state’s canons of judicial conduct and rules of criminal procedure required the circuit court to hold a hearing and reach a decision on its merits; prosecutors have a duty to pursue a remedy to set aside an unlawful conviction; the circuit court had inherent authority to prevent a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice and abused its discretion by not considering and deciding the motion, even though it was untimely; and, if necessary, this Court should amend its rules to permit a prosecutor to file a motion for new trial in a case of manifest injustice or wrongful conviction.
The Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers argue prosecutors, as a matter of law, should have the ability to exercise their statutory and ethical duty to assist in overturning wrongful convictions of innocent persons; Rule 91, governing habeas corpus, is inadequate to provide a remedy to innocent persons who are wrongfully convicted; and Rules 29.11 and 29.12 should be read to allow a prosecutor to file a motion in the circuit court to correct plain error to vacate the conviction of an innocent person.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, The Innocence Project Inc., The Innocence Network and Miracle of Innocence argue substantive review of the issues raised in the circuit attorney’s motion for new trial is required to protect the integrity of the judicial system, is permitted by Missouri law under extraordinary circumstances such as in this case, is necessary under federal and state case law, and is in the public interest.
A group of 45 elected prosecutors from throughout the country argues the circuit court had authority to waive the standard time limitation and consider the circuit attorney’s new trial motion; the circuit attorney is a quasi-judicial officer elected by the citizens in her city to exercise her discretion in all criminal matters within the city, including wrongful convictions; the circuit attorney must have a legal mechanism to seek a new trial for a defendant when newly discovered evidence shows the conviction was tainted by constitutional violations; and the circuit attorney – not the attorney general – is the only authorized representative of the state in this matter absent a disqualifying conflict or other special basis to appoint the attorney general.
A group of nine legal scholars focusing on habeas corpus jurisprudence and postconviction remedies argues equity demands a judicial procedure by which prosecutors can fulfill their ethically and constitutionally mandated duty to seek justice in cases of actual innocence involving constitutional violations at trial; the circuit attorney is a quasi-judicial officer with the power to free the innocent, as historically accommodated by Missouri courts; and Missouri rules provide the procedural mechanism for the circuit court to exercise its equitable authority to correct a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
A group of 107 legal ethics scholars argues the circuit attorney acted in accordance with her duty to seek justice in seeking to rectify what she concluded, after her office’s investigation, was Johnson’s wrongful conviction.
A group of 30 elected Missouri prosecutors argues the circuit attorney’s office has no authority to file a motion for a new trial in a criminal case on the defendant’s behalf; the circuit court lacked authority to rule on the merits of an untimely successive new trial motion; a prosecutor’s legal and ethical obligations in wrongful convictions are satisfied by disclosure; a prosecutor must not litigate on a defendant’s behalf; and this Court should not amend its rules to permit a prosecutor to file a new trial motion decades after the circuit court exhausted its jurisdiction.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One involves whether the circuit court properly dismissed the circuit attorney’s motion for a new trial or even had authority to consider it. Related issues include whether only the defendant can file such a motion or whether the circuit attorney also can and, if so, whether Rule 29.11’s 15-day deadline for such motions applies to bar a new trial motion filed by the circuit attorney decades after the conviction. If the circuit court lacked authority to consider the circuit attorney’s new trial motion, another question involves whether extraordinary circumstances permit plain error review and warrant this Court granting relief. Related issues include whether this Court should determine that prosecutors always have the authority to file new trial motions when faced with evidence of wrongful conviction; if not, what alternative vehicle permits the circuit attorney to correct unjust convictions within her jurisdiction; and whether the circuit attorney’s motion convincingly demonstrates Johnson is actually innocent, his conviction was obtained through false or manufactured evidence, and the state concealed material exculpatory and impeachment evidence. A further question involves whether the circuit court erred in appointing the attorney general to represent the state in this case.
A number of individuals and organizations filed briefs as friends of the Court:
A group of 11 retired Missouri judges argues the state’s canons of judicial conduct and rules of criminal procedure required the circuit court to hold a hearing and reach a decision on its merits; prosecutors have a duty to pursue a remedy to set aside an unlawful conviction; the circuit court had inherent authority to prevent a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice and abused its discretion by not considering and deciding the motion, even though it was untimely; and, if necessary, this Court should amend its rules to permit a prosecutor to file a motion for new trial in a case of manifest injustice or wrongful conviction.
The Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers argue prosecutors, as a matter of law, should have the ability to exercise their statutory and ethical duty to assist in overturning wrongful convictions of innocent persons; Rule 91, governing habeas corpus, is inadequate to provide a remedy to innocent persons who are wrongfully convicted; and Rules 29.11 and 29.12 should be read to allow a prosecutor to file a motion in the circuit court to correct plain error to vacate the conviction of an innocent person.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, The Innocence Project Inc., The Innocence Network and Miracle of Innocence argue substantive review of the issues raised in the circuit attorney’s motion for new trial is required to protect the integrity of the judicial system, is permitted by Missouri law under extraordinary circumstances such as in this case, is necessary under federal and state case law, and is in the public interest.
A group of 45 elected prosecutors from throughout the country argues the circuit court had authority to waive the standard time limitation and consider the circuit attorney’s new trial motion; the circuit attorney is a quasi-judicial officer elected by the citizens in her city to exercise her discretion in all criminal matters within the city, including wrongful convictions; the circuit attorney must have a legal mechanism to seek a new trial for a defendant when newly discovered evidence shows the conviction was tainted by constitutional violations; and the circuit attorney – not the attorney general – is the only authorized representative of the state in this matter absent a disqualifying conflict or other special basis to appoint the attorney general.
A group of nine legal scholars focusing on habeas corpus jurisprudence and postconviction remedies argues equity demands a judicial procedure by which prosecutors can fulfill their ethically and constitutionally mandated duty to seek justice in cases of actual innocence involving constitutional violations at trial; the circuit attorney is a quasi-judicial officer with the power to free the innocent, as historically accommodated by Missouri courts; and Missouri rules provide the procedural mechanism for the circuit court to exercise its equitable authority to correct a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
A group of 107 legal ethics scholars argues the circuit attorney acted in accordance with her duty to seek justice in seeking to rectify what she concluded, after her office’s investigation, was Johnson’s wrongful conviction.
A group of 30 elected Missouri prosecutors argues the circuit attorney’s office has no authority to file a motion for a new trial in a criminal case on the defendant’s behalf; the circuit court lacked authority to rule on the merits of an untimely successive new trial motion; a prosecutor’s legal and ethical obligations in wrongful convictions are satisfied by disclosure; a prosecutor must not litigate on a defendant’s behalf; and this Court should not amend its rules to permit a prosecutor to file a new trial motion decades after the circuit court exhausted its jurisdiction.
SC98303_legal_ethics_scholars_amici_brief
SC98303_45_prosecutors_amici_brief
SC98303_NACDL_and_MACDL_amici_brief
SC98303_retired_MO_judges_amici_brief
SC98303_postconviction_legal_scholars_amici_brief