The case of Christopher Dunn marks the second time Attorney General Andrew Bailey has appealed the swift release of a person whose murder conviction was overturned.

For more than 30 years, Christopher Dunn has been incarcerated in Missouri, accused of a murder he insisted he did not commit. Freedom seemed within his grasp when a circuit judge overturned his conviction and ordered for his release Wednesday — only to be overruled when the state Supreme Court granted the attorney general’s request for a stay.

The legal showdown over Dunn’s release marks the second time in a matter of weeks that Missouri’s Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey has fought a court order to release an inmate who was found to be wrongly convicted.

Last month, Sandra Hemme, 64, the longest-held wrongly incarcerated woman known in the U.S., had her conviction overturned, only to have Bailey appeal her release, keeping her behind bars. Ultimately, she was released July 19 after a judge threatened to hold the attorney general’s office in contempt of court.

    • Promethiel@lemmy.world
      5·
      3 months ago

      The solution seems simple. AG Bailey and Judge Hickle both need to be seen engaging in [illegal action they are innocent of] by a sane Missouri Justice System officer and an arrest warrant issued for them.

      Only death row inmates…it’s not just that it’s beyond the pale but it’s so stupid while it’s at it I can’t summon words.

      • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
        4·
        3 months ago

        Oh, I forgot to include the part from Lincoln v. Cassidy which makes it even worse.

        We conclude that Relator would be unable to sustain his burden to establish the procedurally barred claims that he was denied a constitutionally adequate trial, rendering it unnecessary to determine whether Relator has sustained his burden to establish a gateway to review those claims. Because the Missouri Supreme Court has not recognized a freestanding claim of actual innocence in cases where the death penalty has not been imposed, we are not at liberty to expand Missouri habeas jurisprudence to permit consideration of the claim in this case. Accordingly, Relator’s habeas petition is denied.

        When you read further into the weeds it gets even worse as there are apparently limitations on whether you can claim innocence depending on whether the trial was “constitutionally adequate” and when issues were raised. Just a bunch of excuses that procedure is more important than justice.