Jon Keith Smith v. Michael Groose Missouri Attorney General
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 3433, 2000 WL 250217, 205 F.3d 1045 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from securing criminal convictions against multiple defendants for the same offense, arising from the same event, by presenting inherently factually contradictory theories of the crime in separate trials.
Facts:
- On the morning of November 27, 1983, police found the dead bodies of Pauline and Earl Chambers in their Kansas City home, with a butcher knife nearby identified as the murder weapon.
- On the evening of November 26, 1983, Jon Keith Smith, James Bowman, Anthony Lytle, and Donald Dixon, all juveniles, decided to burglarize a house in the neighborhood.
- Upon arriving at the Chamberses' house, the group observed a broken storm door and an ajar front door, leading them to believe other burglars were already inside, prompting them to plan to "rob the burglars."
- Smith and Bowman left to retrieve a shotgun from Bowman's car, while Lytle and Dixon remained to watch the house.
- Michael Cunningham then exited the house carrying a television; Dixon recognized him, and Cunningham subsequently allowed the group to enter and take additional property.
- Anthony Lytle later provided two conflicting accounts of the murders to the police: in one account (November 30, 1983), he stated that the Chamberses were already dead when his group entered the house; in another account (December 2, 1983), he claimed he witnessed James Bowman stabbing Mr. Chambers after their group had entered.
Procedural Posture:
- Jon Keith Smith was convicted of first-degree felony murder, armed criminal action, robbery, and burglary in Missouri state court and was sentenced to five terms of life imprisonment.
- Smith appealed his conviction, including a claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence based on Anthony Lytle’s recanted statement.
- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed Smith's convictions and sentence in an unpublished opinion on May 3, 1988 (Smith was appellant).
- Smith's application to transfer his case to the Missouri Supreme Court was denied on September 13, 1988 (Smith was appellant).
- Smith filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in June 1991 in the federal district court, again claiming insufficiency of evidence based on Lytle’s statement.
- The federal district court denied both Smith's petition and his application for a certificate of probable cause.
- On January 29, 1993, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded Smith's case to the district court for further proceedings based on a claim of newly discovered evidence.
- On August 4, 1995, the district court again denied Smith's petition.
- On November 16, 1998, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Smith a certificate of appealability on his claim of insufficient evidence regarding the State's use of inconsistent testimony (Smith was appellant, the State of Missouri/warden was appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause prohibit a state from securing convictions for the same murders against multiple defendants by presenting inherently factually contradictory theories of when the murders occurred in separate trials, thereby rendering a defendant's conviction fundamentally unfair?
Opinions:
Majority - Wollman, Chief Judge
Yes, the State's use of inherently factually contradictory theories regarding the timing of the murders to secure convictions against Jon Keith Smith and Michael Cunningham for the same offenses violated Smith's due process rights, rendering his convictions fundamentally unfair. The court emphasized the prosecutor's fundamental duty to seek justice and truth, not merely to win convictions, citing Berger v. United States. The State's actions in Smith's trial, where it relied on Lytle's December 2, 1983, statement implicating Bowman as the killer after Smith's group entered, were directly contradicted by its arguments in Cunningham's trial, where it relied on Lytle's November 30, 1983, statement that the victims were already dead upon their arrival. This "before/after distinction" was crucial for felony murder convictions, as it allowed the State to convict multiple defendants based on mutually exclusive factual premises. Such "foul blows" fatally infected Smith's conviction because the State essentially argued that the Chamberses were murdered at two different times to achieve two convictions. The court distinguished this from mere inconsistent testimony within a single trial or minor variations, highlighting that the inconsistency was "at the core of the prosecutor’s cases." Absent the State's contradictory argument, the outcome of Smith's trial probably would have been different, as evidence other than Lytle's December 2nd statement did not conclusively point to Bowman as the killer during Smith's presence. The court clarified that its holding was dictated by existing precedent regarding prosecutorial fairness and the search for truth, and even if it were a new rule, it would fall under the Teague v. Lane exception for fundamental fairness.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of prosecutorial discretion, establishing that the Due Process Clause prohibits the use of "inherently factually contradictory theories" to obtain convictions against different defendants for the same crime. This ruling prevents prosecutors from manipulating evidence across separate trials to secure multiple convictions based on mutually exclusive factual narratives. It reinforces the ethical obligation of prosecutors to prioritize truth and fairness over maximizing convictions, serving as a critical check on potential prosecutorial overreach. Future cases will likely rely on this precedent to challenge convictions where the prosecution has adopted inconsistent core factual theories across trials for co-defendants.
