Prosecutors Want New Trials for Flawed Convictions. What Happens When States Say No?

Now the case is headed for the Missouri Supreme Court in a legal effort that could bolster or undermine efforts by prosecutors nationwide to reopen cases where there are glaring questions about the verdict but unclear legal avenues for pursuing exoneration.

On Tuesday, a Missouri appeals court said it had no choice but to dismiss a case that sought to allow the elected prosecutor in St. Louis, Kim Gardner, to obtain a new trial for Lamar Johnson, whose case has become a cause célèbre for many recently elected district attorneys across the country.

In the years since his conviction, the only significant witness against him recanted, and two other men confessed that they alone were responsible for the crime. St. Louis prosecutors, who believe that Johnson is innocent, say the case was also marred by other perjury and prosecutorial misconduct.

Ruling on Christmas Eve, the Missouri appeals court judges made sure the case is not over. They specifically ordered it sent to the state Supreme Court for further review, saying the fight over Johnson’s fate was an important case of “first impression” — the first time courts were having to interpret these legal issues.

They also said the case raised “questions fundamental to our criminal justice system,” such as to what extent prosecutors have a duty to correct wrongful convictions. And they added: “Resolution of these issues may require re-examination of existing law.”

Missouri’s attorney general, Eric Schmitt, has fought the case in court, arguing that St. Louis prosecutors did not have the power to seek a new trial for Johnson, and that the courts did not have the power to consider the motion so long after his conviction.

Gardner’s request for a new trial is simply not allowed under Missouri state law, Schmitt said in a court filing.

She and Johnson are asking the court system “to act outside its authority and overturn the jury’s verdict, decades after it became final,” Schmitt stated. “This court has no power to hear Johnson’s motion or to grant a new trial in this case.”

Schmitt’s objections mirror a growing number of cases where state attorneys general and governors have sought to curtail the power of a new wave of recently elected prosecutors to re-examine old convictions or curb prosecutions of minor crimes.

A judge in St. Louis has already ruled against a new trial for Johnson; if the ruling were ultimately upheld it could make it almost impossible for prosecutors in Missouri to reopen similar cases in the future, no matter how persuasive any new evidence of innocence.

Johnson’s case was investigated for years by the Midwest Innocence Project, which turned its findings over to a conviction integrity unit that Gardner set up inside her office after she won election in 2016. Almost 60 district attorneys across the country now have conviction integrity units, which are charged with reviewing potentially wrongful verdicts. Collectively, they have played a role in almost 400 exonerations over the past dozen years.

Any decision by Missouri’s highest court would be binding in that state alone. But the closely watched case could influence the course of similar proceedings in other states that also do not have clear statutory mechanisms for allowing inmates a way to obtain a new trial when significant evidence of innocence emerges years after conviction.

That appeared to be one reason the appeals judges ordered the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. Johnson’s case has “garnered national attention given the numerous jurisdictions with conviction integrity units facing similar questions of significance to the administration of justice in those states,” the judges noted.

The 34 prosecutors who have joined together to support Gardner’s right to pursue a new trial for Johnson include district attorneys from Dallas, San Antonio and Milwaukee, and those from smaller municipalities in states including Mississippi, Virginia and Alabama.

“Elected prosecutors should not be expected to await or rely on the actions of others to correct legal wrongs; indeed, they are ethically required to proactively address these concerns,” the prosecutors wrote in a filing with the Missouri appeals court. They added, “Any erosion of this duty impedes the work of prosecutors and undermines the public trust.”

Miriam Krinsky, a former federal prosecutor who helped gather friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Gardner, said the appeals judges appeared to be frustrated that they did not have a way to resolve a case with such significant evidence of innocence.

The “task list” the judges sent to the state Supreme Court “suggests they were deeply troubled about where they were forced to come out on this, and that they did not have a solution within their control,” said Krinsky, executive director of Fair and Just Prosecution, an umbrella group of prosecutors elected on platforms of overhauling the criminal justice system.

“They wanted to ensure that this was not the end of it,” she said.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times .