The Missouri Supreme Court has vacated and remanded a city of St. Louis Circuit Court judgment that awarded $2.5 million to a man who was incarcerated after two St. Louis police officers improperly accused him of possession of cocaine.
However, Missouri Supreme Court Chief Judge George W. Draper III dissented stating, “I would affirm the circuit court’s judgment finding the state, through state legal expense fund (SLEF) was obligated to pay Holmes’ $2.5 million judgment against the former officers for their reprehensible conduct in 2003 resulting in his wrongful conviction and incarceration.”
After Michael Holmes was convicted on two counts of federal drug crimes and was sentenced to 20 years in prison, a subsequent department investigation into the two officers uncovered instances of fabricating evidence in certain cases. As a result, the indictment against Holmes was dismissed and in December 2012, Holmes filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, which resulted in a jury trial awarding him $2.5 million in damages. However, when Holmes submitted the claim for payment to the State Legal Expense Fund in 2016, it was denied.
“It's frustrating to face the prospect of continued litigation when years ago, the state admitted that either the city or the state itself would pay and we think it's time for that to occur so that Michael Holmes can move on with his life and close this chapter,” said David Owens, who argued in support of Holmes before the Missouri Supreme Court.
After the State Legal Expense Fund denied Holmes’ claim, he filed a lawsuit in St. Louis Circuit Court where Judge Joan Moriarty ruled in his favor. However, Missouri Supreme Court Judge Patricia Breckenridge wrote in her June 15 opinion that Holmes failed to show that he is entitled to a declaration that the state is obligated to pay his judgment out of the State Legal Expense Fund (SLEF)
“The right to payment from SLEF attaches when a claim is made and, at the time Mr. Holmes first made his claim, Section 105.726.3, RSMo Supp. 2013, prohibited SLEF from paying claims against police officers,” Judge Breckenridge wrote.
Holmes’ claims against the former officers arose before September 2013 when control over the St. Louis metropolitan police department transferred from the state to local control.
“The Missouri Supreme Court did not address in this decision the fact that the Missouri Legislature recognized there was going to be a problem in moving from state control to city control with things that happened while it was under state control and so for those types of claims, the State Legal Expense Fund still has to reimburse St. Louis for money it pays out,” Owens told the St. Louis Record. “The state is still involved. The city is still involved and Mr. Holmes is caught up in the middle of a fight between those two entities.”
Complicating matters even further is the fact that the state represented to the federal court that the judgment would be paid, according to Owens, a lawyer with Loevy & Loevy civil rights law firm.
“There's no doubt that the State Legal Expense Fund covered the officer's actions that took place in 2003 in this particular case because it was before the switch to state control and even more troubling is that Mr. Holmes wouldn't have even been allowed under prevailing law to make a claim against the officers at the time of their conduct before 2005,” Owens said. “That's just a matter of law. We filed a timely claim after my client was exonerated, which is what makes the retrospective application even more troubling.”