Plain Old Justice

   

(June 3, 2021)  The Missouri Supreme Court has declined to consider a petition filed on behalf of Kevin Strickland, who has served 42 years in prison for murders he did not commit.  The court did not give a reason for its decision.

    Prosecuting Attorney Jean Peters Baker, convinced of Strickland's innocence, had joined with lawyers from the Midwest Innocence Project and from a large international law firm, in seeking Strickland's release.  This team has not given up.  Baker said that "we are pursuing all avenues of exoneration for Mr. Strickland."

    The governor knows about the case and might pardon him, but it hasn't happened yet.  Recently, Missouri Governor Mike Parson pardoned 36 people pardoned 36 people, but Strickland's name wasn't on that list.

    However, there is another possibility.  The Missouri legislature has passed a bill to give circuit courts - the trial-level courts of general jurisdiction - authority to free the wrongfully-convicted.

    If the governor signs the legislation, it will take effect this August 28.  Prosecutor Baker said that, if it is still necessary, she will be ready that morning to file a petition seeking Strickland's release.

 

    ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A Role Model for Prosecutors

By K. W. Locke

 (May 16, 2021)  No one likes to admit an error, but prosecutors can be especially hardheaded.  Even when clear and convincing evidence proves that a convict is really innocent, many prosecutors reflexively oppose his  release from prison.  And even after an innocent person is released from prison and asks a court to clear his record, some prosecutors will fight that effort tooth and nail.

    So, Jean Peters Baker, the prosecuting attorney in Jackson County, Missouri, deserves applause.  She is seeking the release of a man who has spent 42 years in prison for murders he did not commit.

    Actually, many people deserve credit.   Three attorneys from a prestigious international law firm, working without pay, teamed up with the Midwest Innocence Project to assemble and present evidence that Kevin Strickland was not part of the gang that killed three people and injured a fourth in 1978.

     Strickland's first trial ended with a hung jury.  During the second trial, a survivor mistakenly identified him as one of the four attackers.  However, she later recanted that testimony.

    Additionally, just months after Strickland's conviction, one of the actual perpetrators entered a guilty plea.  This guilty plea went much further than just saying "I did it."  The perpetrator gave a detailed description of the crime which made clear that Strickland had not been present.

    Other perpetrators gave sworn statements exonerating Strickland and identifying the true murderer.  Nonetheless, Strickland remains in prison today.

     That may soon change.  In November 2020, the Midwest Innocence Project and the attorneys from Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner presented evidence of Strickland's innocence to the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office.

Recently, Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker joined in their petition to the Missouri Supreme Court to free Strickland.

   Legally, the prosecutor didn't have to do that.  That's because the ethical rules binding lawyers in Missouri differ from the Model Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the American Bar Association.

    The ABA's Model Rules are not binding, but provide an example which many state supreme courts copy in promulgating the ethical standards for that state's lawyers.  In fact, almost all of the Missouri rule governing prosecutorial conduct does closely follow the ABA's Model Rule, but the Missouri Rule leaves out the last two sections of the Model Rule.

Those last two sections – (g) and (h) – concern what a prosecutor must do upon discovering that a person already convicted of a crime is innocent.  They state:

          (g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall:

          (1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and

          (2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction,

          (i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and

          (ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.

          (h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.

    Because the Missouri rules do not include these provisions, the prosecutor would not have been subject to discipline if she had simply declined to join in the petition.  She did the right thing anyway.

 

    Bravo!