The Missouri Supreme Court has blocked the immediate release of a man whose murder conviction was overturned — just as the man was about to walk free.
A St. Louis Circuit Court judge had ordered Christopher Dunn to be released by 6 p.m. CDT Wednesday and threatened the prison warden with contempt if Dunn remained imprisoned. But the attorney general has been fighting his release.
Corrections Department spokeswoman Karen Pojmann said Dunn was signing paperwork to be released when the Missouri Supreme Court issued a stay, blocking his freedom. His wife was en route to pick him up.
St. Louis Circuit Judge Jason Sengheiser’s decision to release Dunn came after he overturned Dunn’s murder conviction Monday, citing evidence of “actual innocence” in the 1990 killing. He ordered Dunn’s immediate release then, but Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey appealed, and the state Department of Corrections declined to release him.
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Gabe Gore filed a motion Wednesday urging the judge to immediately order Dunn’s freedom.
“The attorney general cannot unilaterally decide to ignore this court’s order,” Gore wrote.
A court filing said an attorney for the Department of Corrections told a lawyer in Gore’s office that Bailey advised the agency not to release Dunn until the appeal played out. When told it was improper to ignore a court order, the Department of Corrections attorney “responded that the attorney general’s office is legal counsel to the DOC and the DOC would be following the advice of counsel.”
On Wednesday, Sengheiser said the prison in Licking had until 6 p.m. CDT to release Dunn, or he would hold an order for the warden to be held in contempt of court.
“Barring a new court order that supersedes the current court order, Mr. Dunn will be released before 6 p.m.,” Missouri Corrections Department spokeswoman Karen Pojmann said in an email to The Associated Press, later texting that she expected him to be released in about an hour.
“It shouldn’t be this hard,” said Dunn’s attorney, Tricia Rojo Bushnell, the executive director of the Midwest Innocence Project.
‘Over the moon’
Dunn’s wife told the AP she couldn’t believe the news.
“I’m over the moon,” Kira Dunn said as she headed to the prison.
“We’re so grateful to the judge. We’re so grateful that he didn’t allow his ruling to be disrespected that way and he put his foot down and said, ‘You will respect the rule of law and you will respect a court order.’ “
She said her husband looks forward to being freed after decades of longing to embrace his family for as long as he wants and having “a say in his own life.”
“He wants to just feel free ground against his feet. He wants to walk barefoot. He wants to open and close doors as he chooses. He wants to select the temperature of his shower. He wants to go out in the middle of the night and look at the stars and just sit there. And, he wants to sleep in a real bed,” she said.
Dunn’s situation is similar to what happened to Sandra Hemme.
The 64-year-old woman spent 43 years in prison for the fatal stabbing of a woman in St. Joseph in 1980. A judge on June 14 cited evidence of “actual innocence” and overturned her conviction. She had been the longest-held wrongly incarcerated woman known in the U.S., according to the National Innocence Project, which worked to free Hemme.
But appeals by Bailey — all the way up to the Missouri Supreme Court — kept Hemme imprisoned at the Chillicothe Correctional Center. During a court hearing Friday, Judge Ryan Horsman said that if Hemme wasn’t released within hours, Bailey himself would have to appear in court with contempt of court on the table. She was released later that day.
Judicial scolding
The judge also scolded Bailey’s office for calling the Chillicothe warden and telling prison officials not to release Hemme after he ordered her to be freed on her own recognizance.
Dunn was convicted of first-degree murder in the 1990 shooting of Ricco Rogers, 15. Gore’s office examined the case and filed a motion in February seeking to vacate the guilty verdict.
After weighing the case for nearly two months, Sengheiser issued a ruling that cited “a clear and convincing showing of ‘actual innocence’ that undermines the basis for Dunn’s convictions, because in light of new evidence, no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find Dunn guilty of these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Lawyers for Bailey’s office said at the hearing that initial testimony from two boys at the scene who identified Dunn as the shooter was correct, even though they recanted as adults.
A Missouri law adopted in 2021 lets prosecutors request hearings when they see evidence of a wrongful conviction. Although Bailey’s office is not required to oppose such efforts, he also did so at a hearing for Lamar Johnson, who spent 28 years in prison for murder. Another St. Louis judge ruled in February 2023 that Johnson was wrongfully convicted, and he was freed.
Another hearing begins August 21 for death row inmate Marcellus Williams. Bailey’s office is opposing the challenge to Williams’ conviction, too. Timing is of the essence: Williams is scheduled to be executed September 24.
St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell filed a motion in January to vacate the conviction of Williams for the fatal stabbing of Lisha Gayle in 1998. Bell’s motion said three experts determined that Williams’ DNA was not on the handle of the butcher knife used in the killing.
Steven Puro, professor emeritus of political science at St. Louis University, said Bailey is in a highly competitive race for the attorney general position, with the primary quickly approaching on August 6.
“Bailey is trying to show that he is ‘tough on crime,’ which is a very important Republican conservative position. Clearly, he’s angering members of the judicial system that he will have to argue before in the future. But he’s making the strategic notion that he needs to get his name before the voters and try to use that to win the primary election.”
‘Court has to be obeyed’
Michael Wolff, a former Missouri Supreme Court judge and chief justice, concurred with Puro’s observation, saying the handling of the case appears to be influenced by politics, also noting that the primary is quickly approaching.
“Does August 6 have anything to do with it?” he asked.
“If there’s a finding of actual innocence and there’s no case left, then that’s all,” Wolff said. “Then it seems to me that it’s just whatever he believes and whatever his political instincts tell him to do. But one of the things is that no matter what your beliefs are, if a court orders something to happen, it’s not your purview to say no. The court has to be obeyed.”
