- While Christopher Dunn was signing papers to be released from prison after his murder conviction was overturned, the Missouri Supreme Court issued a ruling putting a stay on his release.
- One of the key pieces of evidence in convicting Dunn of first-degree murder was the testimony of two juveniles who were at the shooting scene, but later recanted, saying they had been coerced by police and prosecutors.
- Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s office is fighting challenges to some of the convictions.
The Missouri Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked the immediate release of a man who was about to be released after his murder conviction was overturned.
A St. Louis Circuit Court judge ordered that Christopher Dunn, now 52, be released by 6 p.m. CDT on Wednesday and threatened to sue the prison warden for contempt if Dunn remains incarcerated. But Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey opposes Dunn’s release.
As the judge’s deadline approached, things got confusing. Department of Corrections spokeswoman Karen Pojman told The Associated Press that Dunn had left the prison and was waiting for a ride. His wife told The Associated Press she was on her way to pick him up. A few minutes later, Pojman corrected herself, saying that while Dunn was signing his release papers, the Missouri Supreme Court had issued a ruling putting a hold on his release.
77-year-old Philadelphia man released after decades in prison for murder he didn’t commit
St. Louis Circuit Judge Jason Sennheiser on Monday overturned Dunn’s murder conviction, citing evidence of his “actual innocence” in the 1990 killing. The judge ordered Dunn’s immediate release, but Bailey appealed and the state Department of Corrections refused to release Dunn.
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Gabe Gore filed a motion Wednesday asking the judge to immediately order Dunn’s release.
“The Attorney General cannot unilaterally ignore this Court’s order,” Gore wrote.
Christopher Dunn, right, listens to his attorney, Justin Bonus, left, during the first day of a hearing to decide whether to vacate his murder conviction, at Carnahan Courthouse in St. Louis on May 21, 2024. A Missouri judge on July 24, 2024, overturned the conviction of Dunn, who had served more than 30 years in prison for a murder he long maintained he did not commit. (Laurie Scriven/St. Louis Post-Dispatch via The Associated Press, Pool, File)
According to court documents, an attorney for the Department of Corrections told lawyers for Gore’s office that Bailey had advised the department not to release Dunn until the appeals were resolved. When told it would be improper to ignore the court order, the attorney for the department “responded that the Attorney General’s Office was legal counsel to the department and that the department would follow the advice of its counsel.”
Dunn’s lawyer, Tricia Rojo Bushnell, executive director of the Midwest Innocence Project, expressed frustration.
“What does this do to the taxpayers of Missouri? What does it gain from using our resources and our state’s time in this way?” she said. “All this does is keep innocent people in prison.”
Driving to the prison, Dunn’s wife said she was shocked that Dunn had not been released earlier this week.
“If you know anything about this case, you know there have been so many disappointments where people thought they were finally going to have their freedom and then it was taken away,” Kira Dunn said. “So we were just prepared.”
Dan’s situation is similar to what happened to Sandra Hemme.
The 64-year-old had served 43 years for the stabbing death of a woman in St. Joseph in 1980. On June 14, a judge overturned her conviction, citing evidence of “actual innocence.” According to the National Innocence Project, which campaigned for Hemi’s release, she was the longest-wrongfully imprisoned woman known to the United States.
Bailey’s appeal continues before the Missouri Supreme Court, while Hemme remains incarcerated at the Chillicothe Correctional Center. During a court hearing on Friday, Judge Ryan Hoseman said that if Hemme was not released within the next few hours, Bailey himself would have to be found in contempt of court. Hemme was released later that day.
The judge also reprimanded Bailey for his office calling the warden and telling prison staff not to release Heme after he ordered bail for the suspect.
Dunn, who is black, was 18 when 15-year-old Rico Rogers was killed in 1990. Among the key evidence used to convict Dunn of first-degree murder was the testimony of two boys who were at the shooting scene but later recanted, saying they had been coerced by police and prosecutors.
During an evidentiary hearing in 2020, another judge agreed that a jury would likely find Dunn not guilty based on the new evidence. But that judge, William Hickle, declined to acquit Dunn, citing a 2016 Missouri Supreme Court decision, saying only death row inmates can make an “autonomous” claim to actual innocence, not those serving life without the possibility of parole, like Dunn.
A 2021 law allows prosecutors to seek court hearings in cases where there is new evidence of wrongful conviction.
Bailey’s office is not required to oppose such efforts, but his office’s lawyers said at the hearing that the initial testimony of two boys who identified Dunn at the scene as the shooter was correct, even though they recanted their testimony as adults.
He also dissented in the trial of Lamar Johnson, who served 28 years for murder. Another St. Louis judge ruled in February 2023 that Johnson was wrongfully convicted and released.
Another hearing for death row inmate Marcellus Williams begins Aug. 21. Bailey’s office is also fighting challenges to Williams’ conviction. Timing is key: Williams’ execution is scheduled for Sept. 24.
Stephen Puro, professor emeritus of political science at Saint Louis University, said Bailey is in a very tight race for attorney general, with the primary election looming on Aug. 6.
Click here to get the FOX News app
“Bailey is trying to portray himself as ‘tough on crime,’ which is a very important position for conservative Republicans,” he said. “Obviously, he’s angered the law enforcement community and he’s going to have to debate that going forward. But he’s strategically thinking he needs to get his name in front of voters and use that to win the primary.”
Former Missouri Supreme Court Justice and Chief Justice Michael Wolff agreed, saying it appeared this had become political for Bailey.
“But one thing is certain: no matter what your beliefs are, if the court orders something, you have no power to refuse it,” he said. “Court orders must be obeyed.”
