Missouri is a right-leaning state where the constitutional rule of law is too often usurped by the conservative political views of its public officeholders.
Take the case of Sandra Hemme, for example. She was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the November 1980 murder of a library worker in St. Joseph, Missouri. She was 20 years old at the time. The only evidence against her was a confession she gave while under heavy sedation at a psychiatric hospital. She had been involuntarily committed and had a history of being under psychiatric treatment since she was 12 years of age.
This case represents the worst possible example of police misconduct. At the time of the crime, the police had evidence that one of their own, Michael Holman, actually murdered the library worker. Witnesses placed the officer’s truck in the area on the day of the murder, his alibi was not credible, he used the victim’s credit card (saying he found it in a ditch), and two earrings identified by the victim’s father as belonging to his daughter were found in Holman’s home.
Holman was later convicted of another crime and sent to prison. He died in 2015.
The St. Joseph police concealed this incriminating evidence against Holman and never disclosed it to Hemme’s defense team. They protected one of their own, knowing that he had probably committed the murder.
This police misconduct caused Hemme to spend the next 43 years in prison for a crime she did not commit before Missouri Circuit Court Judge Ryan Horsman issued a 118-page ruling on June 14, 2024, that declared her “actually innocent” of the murder that Holman most probably did commit.
That actual innocence finding came after the Midwest Innocence Project discovered the police misconduct in her case.
Then there’s the case of Christopher Dunn, whose 1990 murder conviction was overturned on July 21, 2024, by Missouri Circuit Court Judge Jason Sengheiser. At age 18, Dunn was convicted and sentenced to life in St. Louis for the May 1990 murder of a 15-year-old teenager. Dunn always maintained his innocence in the crime.
Dunn was convicted on the testimony of two young witnesses who said they saw him shoot the 15-year-old, even though Dunn’s mother and sister said he was at home with them watching television at the time of the shooting.
Again, official misconduct was involved in Dunn’s wrongful conviction. The two witnesses, 12 and 14 at the time of the crime, later recanted their testimony, saying the police and prosecutors coerced them into giving that testimony.
In his July 21st order, Judge Sengheiser said that Dunn’s defense team “has made a clear and convincing showing of ‘actual innocence’ that undermines the basis for Dunn’s conviction because in light of the new evidence, no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find Dunn guilty of these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Again, the Midwest Innocence Project’s effort that discovered the official misconduct in Dunn’s case and convinced the court to declare him innocent.
However, Missouri’s right-wing attorney general, Andrew Bailey, did not like that two judges, at the behest of the Innocence Project, found official misconduct. He fought to the bitter end—even coming under the threat of being jailed for contempt—trying to block the release of the two inmates. Bailey went so far as to order prison officials not to release the inmates, prompting the threat of contempt and jail.
In a July 23 report, the Kansas City Star described Bailey’s conduct in the two cases this way:
“Critics say Bailey, a Republican, has not only ignored credible legal arguments in these efforts, but crossed moral lines and damaged the integrity of the office. They say the office fights every case to uphold a conviction and score political points regardless of the truth. Meanwhile, Bailey has staunchly criticized other convictions, including the felony case against former President Donald Trump and the conviction of a Kansas City police officer who shot and killed a Black man.
“Bailey’s combativeness toward innocence claims is part of a longstanding culture in the office. In years past, the attorney general’s office argued that the state should proceed with an execution even if the person was innocent. More recently, it has challenged local prosecutors who intervene on behalf of defendants they believe were wrongfully convicted.
“Bailey is running for reelection and will face Will Scharf in the August Republican primary.
“Elad Gross, the Democrat running for Missouri attorney general, said at best Bailey’s default approach to upholding convictions regardless of the evidence was ‘a little bit lazy.’
“‘ At worst it is absolutely an immoral position to take,’ he said.”
It’s worse than immoral. Attorney General Bailey should spend some time in jail for his blatant contempt of court and the exercise of calculated inhumanity to score cheap political points.