Support truly
independent journalism
A man who was on the verge of walking out of prison this week after a judge found evidence of “actual innocence" and overturned his murder conviction now faces a fresh legal hurdle.
The person blocking Christopher Dunn's freedom is Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who is fresh off an unsuccessful battle to keep another woman whose murder conviction was reversed imprisoned.
Political scientists say Bailey's efforts are a way to appear tough on crime and shore up votes in advance of a tough primary race. Judges and defense attorneys are voicing frustration.
"His actions are causing undue harm to this innocent individual and is a stain on our legal system,” Michael Heiskell, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said when asked about Bailey's opposition to Dunn's release.
Here are some things to know:
Who is Christopher Dunn?
Dunn, who is Black, was 18 in 1990 when 15-year-old Ricco Rogers was killed. Among the key evidence used to convict him of first-degree murder was testimony from two boys who were at the scene of the shooting. Both later recanted their testimony, saying they had been coerced by police and prosecutors.
Judge Jason Sengheiser on Monday overturned the murder conviction of the now 52-year-old and ordered his immediate release. Bailey’s office appealed, and prison officials declined to release Dunn.
Sengheiser then held an emergency hearing Wednesday and threatened to hold the warden in contempt if he didn't free Dunn within hours. Dunn was signing papers, preparing to walk out the door, when the Missouri Supreme Court agreed to consider Bailey's objections and halted his release, a corrections department spokesperson said.
“That is not justice," the Midwest Innocence Project, which is representing Dunn, said in a statement.
Bailey's spokesperson has declined repeated email and text requests for comments. On Wednesday, she provided a link to the order halting Dunn’s release.
Dunn's case marks the second “actual innocence” ruling in the state in recent weeks. Sandra Hemme, now 64, spent 43 years in prison for the fatal 1980 stabbing of a library worker before a judge overturned her conviction.
Appeals by Bailey — all the way up to the Missouri Supreme Court — kept Hemme imprisoned at the Chillicothe Correctional Center for more than a month after that initial ruling. During a court hearing last Friday, Judge Ryan Horsman scolded an attorney in Bailey's office for telling the warden not to release Hemme on her own recognizance pending an appellate court review.
“To call someone and tell them to disregard a court order is wrong," Horsman said. He said that if Hemme wasn’t released within hours, Bailey himself would have to appear in court with contempt of court on the table.
Hemme, whose attorneys with the Innocence Project described her as the longest held wrongly incarcerated woman known in the U.S., was released later that day.
“The court has to be obeyed,” said Michael Wolff, a former Missouri Supreme Court judge and chief justice.
Bailey's opposition to innocence claims
A Missouri law adopted in 2021 lets prosecutors request hearings when they see evidence of a wrongful conviction.
The law was passed after another judge, William Hickle, found in 2020 that a jury would likely find Dunn not guilty based on new evidence. But Hickle declined to order Dunn's release, citing a 2016 Missouri Supreme Court ruling that only people on death row could make a “freestanding” claim of actual innocence.
In 2023, Bailey opposed the release of Lamar Johnson, who spent 28 years in prison for murder. Another St. Louis judge overturned Johnson’s conviction, and he was freed.
Stakes are even higher for a hearing next month. St. Louis County’s prosecutor believes DNA evidence shows that Marcellus Williams didn’t commit the crime that landed him on death row. DNA of someone else — but not Williams — was found on the knife used in the 1998 killing, experts said.
A hearing on Williams’ innocence claim begins Aug. 21. His execution is scheduled for Sept. 24.
Bailey’s office is opposing the challenge to Williams’ conviction, too.
Bailey's appointment as attorney general
When Eric Schmitt was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2022, Republican Gov. Mike Parson appointed Bailey, who at the time was serving as the governor's lawyer, as Schmitt's replacement.
Bailey’s first election test comes in next month's primary. Ken Warren, a professor emeritus of political science at Saint Louis University, said fighting the release of people in custody advances Bailey's agenda.
“This will only help him with his base,” he said.
Bailey's opponent, Will Scharf, a former federal prosecutor who recently served as an attorney for former President Donald Trump, has been attacking Bailey as liberal, said Steven Puro, professor emeritus of political science of St. Louis University.
Puro said Bailey is balancing the need to look tough while avoiding being perceived as uncaring and not obeying the law.
“Most other prosecutors have thought the risk was not worth the reward,” Puro said.
Bailey's use of the courts
Since taking office, Bailey has sued Planned Parenthood and President Joe Biden, tried to force clinics that provide gender-affirming care to hand over their records, and pushed a liberal prosecutor to resign.
When debate over transgender minors’ access to gender-affirming health care reached a fever pitch in Missouri in 2023, Bailey tried to restrict access to both minors and adults by regulation — a move typically reserved for the state’s health department.
He later pulled the rule amid legal battles and action from the Legislature. Most recently, Bailey sued the state of New York over its prosecution of Trump, arguing that Trump’s conviction constitutes election interference.
Richard Serafini, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, called the lawsuit against New York “one of the silliest things that I think I’ve ever heard of in the practice of law.”
And Lindsay Runnels, an attorney who serves on the board of the Midwest Innocence Project, questioned the fight to free people once judges have ruled.
“The system doesn’t work if our highest law enforcement officer in the state flouts the court system and believes that they are not accountable to them for their orders and following orders," she said. “It's insane.”
