Jefferson City, MO – Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey faces intense scrutiny as his office has been accused of going to extreme lengths to challenge the release of inmates, even those declared innocent by the courts. Amidst his campaign for election this year, these actions have drawn criticism and raised questions about his use of power.
In several high-profile cases, Bailey’s office has reportedly pushed corrections officials to disregard judicial orders for inmate release. This includes the case of Christopher Dunn, a prisoner whose release was blocked even after a judge ruled him “actually innocent” based on new evidence and recanted testimonies.
Dunn, sentenced at 18 for the 1990 shooting of 15-year-old Ricco Rogers, has spent over three decades behind bars. The testimony that led to his conviction came from two young boys who, as adults, admitted they were coerced by police into testifying against Dunn. Recent judicial findings noted no reasonable jury would convict him based on current evidence, yet his release was stalled due to an appeal from Bailey’s office.
The Attorney General’s intervention didn’t stop at filing appeals; it also reportedly extended to advising the Department of Corrections to keep Dunn incarcerated despite explicit court orders for his release. This move led to a legal showdown, where St. Louis Circuit Judge Jason Sengheiser threatened to charge the warden of South Central Correctional Center with contempt of court for non-compliance with the release order.
Sandra Hemme’s case echoes similar patterns. Hemme, who had spent 43 years in prison for murder, remained incarcerated for an extra month after her conviction was overturned—again due to actions attributed to Bailey’s office. Local judicial authorities were compelled to threaten contempt rulings to effect her mandated release.
These actions raise significant questions about the boundaries of legal advocacy and the responsibilities of those who wield prosecutorial power. While prosecutors can contest exoneration decisions, instructing corrections officials to ignore lawful orders breaches traditional prosecutorial roles and showcases a profound disregard for judicial oversight.
Adding to the controversy, Bailey has been seen as applying his powers inconsistently. For instance, he surprisingly intervened to overturn the conviction of a white police officer convicted of manslaughter, despite his tough-on-crime stance. This selective involvement has sparked discussions on racial biases and the integrity of his office’s operations in racially sensitive cases.
As the state’s top lawyer, Bailey is tasked with upholding justice equitably and impartially. Yet, his office’s approach to these cases appears to conflict with those duties, prioritizing political interests over the pursuit of justice. Such actions not only undermine the state’s legal processes but also erode public trust in the justice system.
Critics and supporters alike will be watching closely as election season approaches, offering Missouri voters a chance to voice their opinions on whether Bailey’s actions align with their expectations of justice and leadership. Meanwhile, individuals like Dunn and Hemme, affected by these legal battles, await resolutions that could restore their freedom or perpetuate their plight, underscoring the profound human impacts of prosecutorial decisions.