Intentional Grounding – Illegal Holding

By Christopher Dunn

Missouri Judicial Authority, please explain something to me.

If the system isn’t broken, why isn’t it working? Also, could you please explain to me why it is so hard for the criminal judicial system to do something as simple as the right thing by just overturning or recalling the mandate action of the 2016 Rodney Lincoln vs. Cassady decision by the Western District?

The whistle has been blown, the yellow flag has been thrown, and a red flag seems to have been tossed on the field. Kent Gipson’s yellow flag raised a valuable point before this Court, as he called “foul” against those who committed the illegal holding of his client, Christopher Dunn.

As Gipson said in an interview with Post-Dispatch, “The combination of Dunn’s case and that of another one in which the Missouri Supreme Court recently denied relief – the Lamar Johnson case – puts the courts in a legal conundrum.”

To be clear, allow me to explain to you why the system is broken:

In Johnson’s case, the Court said that a prosecutor, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner, doesn’t have a path (jurisdiction or authority) under Missouri law to seek to free a person who she believed to be innocent. The Missouri Supreme Court suggested that Johnson must file a Rule 91 habeas corpus petition to seek relief.

Now this where the problem on the field comes into play.

Christopher Dunn filed his Rule 91 in 2017. He then advanced in yards in 2018 when he had an evidentiary hearing in Texas Country, Missouri, before the honorable Judge William E. Hickle. Then, after passing the 10, 15, and 20 yard lines, Dunn was stopped short of the goal when the presiding Judge Hickle wrote, “Despite the clear evidence of innocence,” he couldn’t set Dunn free because of the Lincoln precedent blocked Dunn’s entry into the end zone.

So, that leaves the court facing a judicial quagmire. This is why attorney Kent Gipson, who represents Christopher Dunn, chose to throw the yellow flag on the field. See, Dunn already filed in such a court, and the honorable William E. Hickle wrote in a lengthy opinion several reasons why there was clear evidence of Dunn’s innocence. But one power block from probably the most offensive tight end and left tackle, Lincoln vs. Cassady, stood in the way, demolishing any chance at claiming actual innocence under a freestanding claim.

This has left the officials on the field scratching their heads, and they eventually tossed a bootleg, two-headed coin in the air that fell and landed on Senate Bill 53, which is equally confusing. SB 53 still doesn’t solve the problem of the Lincoln ruling or the Missouri Three.

Now we go into overtime
Don’t decline to review
Overturn the play on the field
Reverse the call – recall the mandate

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.