Wearing a crisp gray suit, Christopher Dunn walked into the Division 18 courtroom just blocks west from the famed Gateway Arch in downtown St. Louis, Missouri, on May 21. He took his seat at a long table crowded with binders of legal exhibits and surrounded by a half-dozen lawyers working to free him from prison.
The Background:
Dunn was convicted in July 1991 and sentenced to life in prison for the murder of 15-year-old Recco Rogers. The case against Dunn was solely based on the testimony of two boys who later recanted their statements. Despite the lack of physical evidence linking Dunn to the crime, he found himself in a legal quagmire due to Missouri law restrictions.
The Legal Battle:
In 2021, a new law offered prosecutors an avenue to overturn convictions they believed were wrongly obtained. St. Louis’ appointed circuit attorney, Gabriel Gore, filed a motion to exonerate Dunn based on the recantations of the witnesses. However, the Missouri Attorney General’s office, led by Andrew Bailey, opposed the exoneration, arguing that Dunn’s conviction should be maintained.
The Hearing:
During the two-day hearing, Gore argued for Dunn’s release, while the Attorney General’s office stood firm in their position. Witnesses testified, including Eugene Wilson, who provided an alibi for Dunn on the night of the murder. Nicole Bailey also testified, confirming Dunn’s whereabouts during the crime. The Attorney General’s office questioned the credibility of the witnesses and maintained their stance against Dunn’s innocence.
The Legal Hurdle:
Missouri law posed a challenge for Dunn’s exoneration, as only death row inmates could raise free-standing claims of innocence. Despite evidence supporting Dunn’s innocence, the legal system was limited in providing relief due to these restrictions.
The Attorney General’s Opposition:
The Attorney General’s office has a history of opposing innocence claims and maintaining convictions, even in cases where evidence suggests wrongful imprisonment. Bailey’s aggressive legal actions in various matters have showcased his unwavering stance against exoneration.
The Verdict:
The judge postponed the ruling to allow for post-hearing briefs to be filed, delaying a decision until at least June 10. Dunn’s wife and family hoped for a favorable outcome that would reunite them with Dunn after years of wrongful imprisonment.
In conclusion, the case of Christopher Dunn highlights the complexities of the legal system and the challenges faced by wrongfully convicted individuals seeking exoneration. The battle between prosecutors and defense attorneys underscores the importance of justice and fairness in legal proceedings. As Dunn awaits a final verdict, his story serves as a poignant reminder of the flaws within the criminal justice system and the resilience of those fighting for truth and freedom.