Heartwarming? Appalling? On Whose Part? Whatever It Is, It's Strange Indeed
· Reason
'Tis strange,—but true; for truth is always strange;
Stranger than fiction; if it could be told,
How much would novels gain by the exchange!
How differently the world would men behold!
How oft would vice and virtue places change!
The new world would be nothing to the old,
If some Columbus of the moral seas
Would show mankind their souls' antipodes.
— Byron, Don Juan
Visit newsbetting.club for more information.
From Stewart v. Pemiscot County, decided yesterday by Judge Stephen Clark (E.D. Mo.):
This case proves the wisdom of Lord Byron, who is credited with the maxim truth is stranger than fiction.
Stewart pleaded guilty to statutory rape. Several years later, his defense attorney—now a judge—officiated Stewart's marriage to his victim. The wife of the attorney-turned-judge later successfully moved to vacate Stewart's guilty plea, arguing that it "resulted in a manifest injustice." Stewart now sues Pemiscot County and various County officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy to cover up the terms of his plea agreement….
In October 2009, Stewart pleaded guilty to first-degree statutory rape …. Judge William Carter—then a private attorney—negotiated Stewart's plea agreement…. The written judgment imposed four years of a suspended sentence and four years' probation, but according to Stewart "no lifetime GPS supervision appeared," in the judgment.
Three months later, Stewart and Probation Officer Libby Banks signed a Global Positioning Agreement that mandated compliance with its terms until 2058. Stewart completed his term of probation in October 2013 without a violation. A year later, Stewart's then-attorney … filed a motion to discharge Stewart's lifetime supervision….
{[According to statements in a later proceedings,] at the time of the offense, Stewart was 17 years old and the victim was 13 years old. Seven years after the offense, Stewart and the victim married; Judge Carter served as the officiant. Stewart and his victim, now wife, had six children together.}
In 2022, Stewart was charged with violating Mo. Rev. Stat. § 575.206, "Violating a Condition [o]f Lifetime Supervision," a class D felony. Judge Carter—Stewart's former plea counsel—presided over his arraignment and the next eight months of the case until February 2023 when it was transferred (without any explanation reflected in the case record) to Judge Reeves.
Stewart then claims that his public defender called him and informed him that "Judge Carter wants [him] to call his wife Kimberly, [because] she may be able to assist [him] in the matter along with [the public defender]." Stewart allegedly called Kimberly Carter the same day, and Stewart claims that she said that "Bill (William Carter) had already gotten her up to speed" and she would file a motion on his behalf. Kimberly Carter allegedly charged Stewart $750 for her representation. In April 2023, Kimberly Carter—Judge Carter's wife—entered an appearance on Stewart's behalf and filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
In her motion, Kimberly Carter explained that Stewart "was assured by the understanding of plea counsel," her husband, Judge Carter, "and the prosecuting attorney, and based his decision to enter the plea on the fact [that] should he successfully complete supervision, the conviction would be removed from his record without further consequence."
Though Stewart "continued to comply with the registration requirements of his plea, a consequence of which he was aware at the time he entered his plea," Kimberly Carter stated that he "has refused to comply with the added condition of wearing a Global Positioning System unit." Because of his refusal to comply, Stewart was charged with … "Violating a Condition of Lifetime Supervision, a Class D Felony."
Kimberly Carter argued that Stewart's guilty plea "resulted in a manifest injustice because it violated his rights to due process and to the effective assistance of counsel" under the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution. And she stated that "[b]ut for plea counsel's and prosecuting attorney's explanations of the consequences of his guilty plea, rendering his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary, [Stewart] would not have entered a plea of guilty and would have insisted on his constitutional right to a jury trial."
In late July 2023, Judge Keith Currie granted Stewart's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Judge Currie withdrew Stewart's guilty plea, vacated his conviction, removed "any requirement for registration and/or supervision as a sexual offender that may have been imposed based upon said conviction," and ordered Stewart's name removed from the Missouri Sex Offender Registry.
Stewart also hired an attorney to pursue a malpractice claim against Judge Carter and contacted Kimberley Carter to "discuss a possible settlement for malpractice out of court."
Two months later, Defendant Detective Brett Hopkins filed a probable cause statement stating that Stewart sold a single cabin—that he allegedly did not own—to two separate individuals. After Stewart failed to appear for a hearing, Judge Carter issued a warrant for his arrest. Several months later, on March 20, 2024, Deputy Chad Nixon returned the warrant, i.e., arrested Stewart and brought him before the court.
A day before Deputy Nixon returned the warrant, Hopkins filed a second probable statement. Hopkins alleged that while on patrol he encountered a parked vehicle that was operated by Stewart. To carry out the then-outstanding felony warrant, Hopkins circled the block and got behind the vehicle. At that point, Stewart allegedly fled at a "high rate of speed." Eventually, Stewart came to a stop and fled on foot. Stewart's wife was in the vehicle and confirmed that Stewart operated the vehicle.
Judge Carter presided over Stewart's arraignment in each case, and Stewart's wife posted bond for him in both pending cases. Stewart states, without any factual support, that Pemiscot County officials, Defendants Horton, Hazel, and Hopkins, charged him with these "retaliation felon[ies]" based on "fabricated probable cause and withheld Brady material." …
The court dismissed plaintiff's various claims on various procedural grounds, which you can read about in the full (and long) opinion; but here's an excerpt from one part:
Finally, Stewart seeks a permanent injunction to dismiss "all pending [state] felony charges and expunge[ ] records" …. But Courts may not enjoin pending state criminal proceedings absent "extraordinary circumstances," such as a "bad-faith prosecution or when a criminal statute is 'flagrantly and patently unconstitutional on its face.'"
Stewart's complaint fails to plausibly plead that his subsequent felony prosecutions were conducted in bad faith; they appear to result solely from his own alleged conduct. Stewart didn't wear his Global Positioning Unit. He allegedly sold a single cabin—that he did not own—to two separate individuals. And he allegedly fled from an officer at a "high rate of speed." Because Stewart failed to plausibly plead that "extraordinary circumstances" exist, the Court declines to enjoin two separate pending state criminal proceedings.
A. M. Spradling III (Spradling & Spradling) and Kelli Reichert and Thomas McIntyre Finn (Office the Missouri AG) represent defendants.
The post Heartwarming? Appalling? On Whose Part? Whatever It Is, It's Strange Indeed appeared first on Reason.com.
