Electronically Filed - City of St.
Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
2322-CC00383
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS
STATE OF MISSOURI
STATE OF MISSOURI, EX INF. )
ANDREW BAILEY, )
ATTORNEY GENERAL, )
)
Relator, )
)
v. ) Case No. ____________
)
KIMBERLY M. GARDNER, )
)
Respondent. )
Petition in Quo Warranto
The Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, as Relator and upon information
and belief, states the following in support of the petition for writ of quo warranto
against Kimberly M. Gardner, Respondent:
Introduction
Janae Edmonson, a teenage athlete, was walking back to her hotel in
downtown St. Louis on Saturday, February 18. Ms. Edmonson, who was in town
for a volleyball tournament, had just verbally committed to play sports for a
college in Tennessee. As Ms. Edmonson and her family walked down the
sidewalk, a speeding car driven by Daniel Riley crashed into another car and
struck Ms. Edmonson, severing one of her legs and maiming the other. Her
father, thanks to his quick thinking and military service, applied two belts as
tourniquets as he watched the life drain from her face. Thankfully, Ms.
Edmonson survived, although both of her legs were amputated.
1
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
Daniel Riley never should have been driving that car. In 2020, the St.
Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office charged Riley with First Degree Robbery and
Armed Criminal Action for stealing a firearm from Victim at gunpoint. The
Circuit Attorney dismissed and refiled that case on July 18, 2022, but not before
Riley—who was out on bond—earned 54 separate violations for failing to comply
with the pre-trial bond conditions. After the Circuit Attorney refiled the case,
Riley earned 50 more violations. The Circuit Attorney never filed a motion to
revoke Riley’s bond. 1
Ms. Edmonson’s injuries are the direct result of years of willful neglect
from Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner. As the Circuit Attorney,
Respondent is morally, ethically, and legally responsible for the conduct of her
office. For years, the Circuit Attorney’s Office has failed to prosecute cases to
resolution, has failed to inform and confer with victims, and has failed to even
review and file cases submitted by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police
Department. Respondent has, therefore, forfeited her office. In order to maintain
1 The facts in this section are taken from the following news articles: Chris
Hayes, et al., “Emotional plea from parents of teen athlete struck by reckless
driver,” Fox 2 Now, available at https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/emotional-
plea-from-parents-of-teen-athlete-struck-by-reckless-driver/; Kelsi Anderson, et
al., “Parents of volleyball player who lost legs in crash speak at suspect’s
detention hearing,” KSDK, available at
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/suspect-crash-volleyball-player-denied-
bond-reduction/63-b7d41d82-2850-4a78-802e-54764c024a7c.
2
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
order, enforce the laws, and protect the public, the Attorney General brings this
action in quo warranto.
Parties
1. Relator is Andrew Bailey, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, and
prosecutes this cause for and on behalf of the State of Missouri and its
citizens upon his personal information.
2. Respondent Kimberly Gardner is the Circuit Attorney of the City of St.
Louis, Missouri, and has held that office continuously since January 1,
2017, with her present term commencing on January 1, 2021. The position
of Circuit Attorney of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, is an elective office.
Authority and Jurisdiction
3. This cause of action is governed by Chapter 531, and Rule 98 of the
Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. Relator is authorized to bring this action under § 531.010 which provides
that “in case any person shall . . . unlawfully hold or execute any office . . .
the attorney general of the state . . . shall exhibit to the circuit court, or
other court having concurrent jurisdiction therewith in civil cases, an
information in the nature of a quo warranto . . . .”
5. Relator is also authorized to bring such action under Rule 98.02(b)(1),
which provides that “the attorney general of this state, upon personal
information” may proceed as Relator in quo warranto.
3
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under § 531.010 and Article
VII, § 4, and Article V, § 4 of the Constitution of Missouri.
Statement of the Case
7. Respondent has been the elected Circuit Attorney in the City of St. Louis
since January 1, 2017. Her current term commenced on January 1, 2021.
See § 56.020.
8. The office of Circuit Attorney of the City of St. Louis is an elective office of
great trust in the administration of public justice.
9. As an elected official of the City of St. Louis, Respondent is subject to the
provisions of § 106.220, which states, in pertinent part:
Any person elected or appointed to any county, city, town or
township office in this state, except such officers as may be subject
to removal by impeachment, who shall fail personally to devote his
time to the performance of the duties of such office, or who shall be
guilty of any willful or fraudulent violation or neglect of any official
duty, or who shall knowingly or willfully fail or refuse to do or
perform any official act or duty which by law it is his duty to do or
perform with respect to the execution or enforcement of the criminal
laws of the state, shall thereby forfeit his office[.]
(emphasis added).
10. On or about January 1, 2021, as a condition precedent to taking office, as
required by § 56.550, Respondent swore “to support the Constitution of the
United States and the Constitution of Missouri, and to faithfully demean
[herself] in office.”
4
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
11. By virtue of § 56.450, Respondent, as Circuit Attorney of the City of St.
Louis, must “manage and conduct all criminal cases” in the City of St.
Louis.
12. By virtue of § 56.460, Respondent, as Circuit Attorney of the City of St.
Louis, must “hear complaints in felony and misdemeanor cases and . . . file
information in such cases with the clerk of the circuit court of the city of
St. Louis and . . . prosecute the same in said court. . . .”
13. By virtue of § 56.470, after the St. Louis police arrest any person for a
felony or misdemeanor, and after the St. Louis police report that person’s
name and any prosecuting and material witnesses to the Circuit Attorney
of the City of St. Louis, the circuit attorney must “proceed to institute such
prosecution as is required by law if, in the judgment of such circuit
attorney, the evidence presented to [her] is sufficient to justify a
prosecution.”
14. By virtue of § 56.550, Respondent, as Circuit Attorney of the City of St.
Louis, must “institute and prosecute all criminal actions in the circuit
court” and “may attend upon the grand jury.”
15. By virtue of Article I, § 32, of the Missouri Constitution and §595.209,
Respondent, as Circuit Attorney of the City of St. Louis, must, in cases
involving dangerous felonies and other specified offenses, timely inform
5
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
victims “of the filing of charges, preliminary hearing dates, trial dates,
continuances and the final disposition of the case.” § 595.209.1(3).
16. By virtue of Article I, § 32 of the Missouri Constitution and §595.209,
Respondent, as Circuit Attorney of the City of St. Louis, must, in cases
involving dangerous felonies and other specified offenses, confer with and
inform victims “regarding bail hearings, guilty pleas, pleas under chapter
552 or its successors, hearings, sentencing and probation revocation
hearings and the right to be heard at such hearings . . . .” § 595.209.1(4).
17. As more fully alleged herein, and in the accompanying suggestions in
support of this petition, Respondent is guilty of a “willful . . . violation or
neglect” of her official duties and Respondent has knowingly and willfully
failed to perform her duties which by law it is her duty to “perform with
respect to the execution or enforcement of the criminal laws of the state.”
§ 106.220.
18. By virtue of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4, Respondent, as Circuit
Attorney of the City of St. Louis, must supervise the employees of her
office. Rule 4-5.1; Rule 4-5.3; § 56.450.
19. During Respondent’s present term as Circuit Attorney of the City of St.
Louis, Respondent has forfeited her office for willful neglect of official
duty, including, without limitation, the following incidents:
6
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
i. Respondent and her office willfully neglected to timely move
to revoke bond and prosecute Daniel Riley, resulting in Ms.
Edmonson’s near death and loss of her legs.
ii. Over the course of about three months, and concluding on
July 14, 2021, Respondent repeatedly failed to fulfill her
discovery obligations and failed to appear in court and to
prosecute the charges that had been brought against the
defendant in State of Missouri v. Brandon Campbell, No.
2022-CR02036-01, resulting in the dismissal of the charges,
which included a charge of murder in the first degree. The
trial court found that Respondent’s office failed to appear
despite having been served with an order to show cause.
iii. Respondent has failed to notify and confer with victims as
required by Article I, § 32 of the Missouri Constitution and §
595.209.
iv. Respondent has refused to exercise her judgment in multiple
cases to ascertain whether the evidence presented to her is
“sufficient to justify a prosecution.”
v. Respondent has mismanaged her office, causing a mass
exodus of employees.
7
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
vi. Respondent has a backlog of at least 3,000 cases that she has
failed to review for charges, including some number of violent
crimes.
Allegations
Count I
Respondent’s Failure to Prosecute Criminal Cases
20. Relator incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19 as if they were restated
herein.
21. In State of Missouri v. Daniel Riley, No. 2022-CR01534-01, Respondent
willfully neglected her official duty or knowingly or willfully failed or
refused to timely move to revoke bond and prosecute Riley, and as a
result, Riley was not in custody on February 18, 2023, when he drove his
car into Ms. Edmonson, resulting in the loss of both of her legs.
22. On September 4, 2020, Respondent’s office charged Riley with First
Degree Robbery and Armed Criminal Action for stealing a firearm from
Victim at gunpoint. (Ex. 1 Indictment). Between September 4, 2020, and
February 18, 2023, Riley earned at least 94 bond violations for his
misconduct, and Respondent’s office dismissed and refiled the criminal
charges against Riley because the State “was not ready to proceed.” (Ex. 2
Order). The victim’s father reported that the State was not ready because
the Assistant Circuit Attorney had just returned from her honeymoon.
Christine Byers, “‘St. Louis has let you down’: Father of robbery victim
8
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
reacts to volleyball player’s injuries after repeat bond violations go
unchecked,” KSDK, available at: https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/
investigations/father-robbery-victim-reacts-volleyball-players-injuries/63-
b9e0a621-5990-47a1-8d58-be7199abab3d
23. September 4, 2020 to February 18, 2023, Respondent willfully neglected to
seek sufficient bond conditions to protect the community from future
crime.
24. September 4, 2020 to February 18, 2023, Respondent willfully neglected to
file a motion to revoke Riley’s bond despite an extra ordinary number of
bond violations.
25. Since February 18, 2023, Respondent has issued statements to the public
that conflict with the facts. First, Respondent stated that the robbery
victim had died and that is why the case was dismissed and refiled. Id.
But, members of the news media interviewed the robbery victim’s father,
and the robbery victim is alive. Id. Second, Respondent issued a statement
on February 22, 2023, saying “On December 12, 2021, prosecutors asked
for a bond revocation, which was denied by Judge Hettenbach.” @Stlcao,
Twitter (Feb. 22, 2023, 10:15), https://twitter.com/stlcao/status/
1628609479745982466?s=20. However, the court’s docket sheet reveals no
such request, and moreover, December 12, 2021, was a Sunday. Third,
Respondent issued a statement on February 22, 2023, saying “On August
9
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
10, 2022, Mr. Riley was again released on personal recognizance and GPS,
against the state’s wishes.” Id. However, the Court order that day
indicates that the “State and Defendant consent to conditions of release as
set forth below.” (Ex. 10) (emphasis added). The order is signed by counsel
for the State. (Id.).
26. In State of Missouri v. Brandon Campbell, No. 2022-CR02036-01,
Respondent willfully neglected her official duty or knowingly or willfully
failed or refused to fulfill her discovery obligations and failed to appear on
multiple occasions and, as a result, the charges in that case, including a
charge of First Degree Murder, were dismissed on July 14, 2021, after the
court found that Respondent’s office had “essentially abandoned its duty to
prosecute those it charges with crimes” (Ex. 3 Dismissal Order).
27. Respondent willfully neglected her official duty or knowingly or willfully
failed or refused to maintain proper case staffing by assigning State of
Missouri v. Brandon Campbell, No. 2022-CR02036-01, to an Assistant
Circuit Attorney who was on maternity leave.
28. Respondent has willfully neglected her official duty or knowingly or
willfully failed or refused to prosecute criminal cases, in that she has
failed to maintain proper attorney staffing.
29. Upon information and belief, there are more than 200 case of First Degree
Murder, Second Degree Murder, and Involuntary Manslaughter currently
10
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
pending. Upon information and belief, one attorney, who has had three
health related incidents during trials, including one on February 14, 2023,
is assigned 44 of those homicide cases. Upon information and belief,
another attorney is assigned 43 of those case, a third attorney is assigned
28 of those cases, a fourth attorney is assigned 24 of those cases, and a
fifth attorney is assigned 24 of those cases. Upon information and belief
there are 163 homicide cases assigned to five attorneys. Upon information
and belief, the Presiding Judge of the Circuit Court of St. Louis City has
requested Respondent to explain how she would ensure that assistant
circuit attorney’s cases would be reassigned. Christine Byers, “Judge
wants to know what’s next for dozens of cases following St. Louis
prosecutor's collapse in court,” KSDK, available at
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/politics/st-louis-prosecutor-collapses-
court-cases/63-4a5b1443-4307-4cf2-b84a-0fde465ddef1. Upon information
and belief, the Presiding Judge has not yet received a response.
30. Upon information and belief, due to Respondent’s willful neglect of her
official duty or knowing or willful failure or refusal to prosecute cases,
Respondent’s office has resolved significantly fewer felony matters. In
2016, Respondent’s office generated 172 felony appeals. In 2017,
Respondent’s office generated 177 felony appeals. In 2018, Respondent’s
office generated 108 felony appeals. In 2019, Respondent’s office generated
11
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
95 felony appeals. In 2020, Respondent’s office generated 81 felony
appeals. In 2021, Respondent’s office generated 56 felony appeals. In 2022,
Respondent’s office generated 69 felony appeals. Upon information and
belief, this nearly two-thirds drop in felony appeals is a direct result of
Respondent’s failure to prosecute and convict guilty defendants.
31. It is Respondent’s duty to manage and prosecute all felony cases in the
City of St. Louis.
32. By her conduct above, Respondent is guilty of a “willful . . . violation or
neglect” of her official duties and Respondent has knowingly and willfully
failed to perform her duties “with respect to the execution or enforcement
of the criminal laws of the state.” § 106.220. Accordingly, Respondent has
forfeited her office and is a usurper who must be removed from office.
Count II
Respondent’s Failure to Inform and Confer with Victims
33. Relator incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19 as if they were restated
herein.
34. Under § 595.209, in cases involving dangerous felonies and charges of
murder in the first degree (among other offenses), Respondent must timely
inform victims “of the filing of charges, preliminary hearing dates, trial
dates, continuances and the final disposition of the case.” § 595.209.1(3).
Respondent must also confer with and inform victims “regarding bail
hearings, guilty pleas, pleas under chapter 552 or its successors, hearings,
12
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
sentencing and probation revocation hearings and the right to be heard at
such hearings. . . .” § 595.209.1(4).
35. “The term ‘victim’ also includes the family members of . . . a homicide
victim.” § 595.200(7). “The rights of the victims granted in this section are
absolute and the policy of this state is that the victim's rights are
paramount to the defendant’s rights.” § 595.209.5.
36. After the court dismissed the charges in State of Missouri v. Brandon
Campbell, No. 2022-CR02036-01—which included a charge of murder in
the first degree—the family members of Randy Moore, the murder victim,
were reportedly “outraged.” Marisa Sarnoff, “St Louis Judge Dismisses
Murder Charges, Blames No-Show Prosecutor: Kim Garner’s Office
‘Abandoned Its Duty,’ ” https://lawandcrime.com/crime/st-louis-judge-
dismisses-murder-charges-blames-no-show-prosecutor-kim-gardners-
office-abandoned-its-duty/. Family members stated that they had not
“heard anything about the case from anyone other than homicide
detectives.”
37. In State of Missouri v. Jarmond Hatim Johnson, No. 2022-CR00529-01,
the Respondent charged Mr. Johnson with the dangerous felony of murder
in the second degree, alleging that Mr. Johnson “with the purpose of
causing serious physical injury to Dwight Anthony Washington caused the
death of Dwight Anthony Washing[ton]” (Ex. 4, Indictment). The victim’s
13
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
mother, Dr. Shirley Washington-Cobb, had been in contact with the
assistant circuit attorney assigned to the case; however, without Dr.
Washington-Cobb’s knowledge, a newly-assigned assistant circuit attorney
negotiated a plea agreement that contemplated a guilty plea to a reduced
charge and the imposition of an eight-year sentence (Ex. 5, Letter). Dr.
Washington-Cobb only found out about the plea agreement when she
called the Circuit Attorney’s office to inquire about trial, which had
previously been scheduled before the plea agreement was negotiated (Exs.
6–7). Dr. Washington-Cobb expressed her anger to the media on July 21,
2021, just a few days after she found out about the plea agreement.
Christine Byers, “Grieving mother furious with St. Louis prosecutors for
striking deal with son’s killer,” https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/
investigations/grieving-mother-furious-st-louis-striking-deal-sons-killer-
kim-gardner-city-attorney/63-07c6f941-0f06-4e11-a3ac-7a33a78ae324.
Five days later, on July 26, 2012, the defendant pleaded guilty to the
offense of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, and he was
sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment (Exs. 8–9). 2
38. It was Respondent’s duty in State of Missouri v. Brandon Campbell, No.
2022-CR02036-01, to inform the victim’s family members about any
2 The written judgment originally indicated that the defendant would be
sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment; however, a handwritten change to the
document indicates that he was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment (Ex. 9).
14
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
hearings in the case and the final disposition of the case. By failing to tell
the victim’s family members “anything about the case,” and by failing to
tell them that the case had been dismissed, Respondent willfully neglected
of her official duties and she has knowingly and willfully failed to perform
her duties “with respect to the execution or enforcement of the criminal
laws of the state.” § 106.220. Accordingly, Respondent has forfeited her
office and is a usurper who must be removed from office.
39. Further, in State of Missouri v. Jarmond Hatim Johnson, No. 2022-
CR00529-01, it was respondent’s duty to confer with and inform the
victim’s family members “regarding . . . guilty pleas.” By failing to confer
with the victim’s mother and inform her of the negotiated plea agreement,
Respondent is guilty of a “willful . . . violation or neglect” of her official
duties, and she has willfully neglected to perform her duties “with respect
to the execution or enforcement of the criminal laws of the state.” See §
106.220. Accordingly, Respondent has forfeited her office and is a usurper
who must be removed from office.
Count III
Respondent’s Refusing to Exercise her Judgment to Determine
Whether there is Evidence Sufficient to Justify a Prosecution
40. Relator incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19 as if they were restated
herein.
15
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
41. When a St. Louis City police officer arrests any person for a felony or
misdemeanor, and after the police report that person’s name and any
prosecuting and material witnesses to the Circuit Attorney of the City of
St. Louis, the circuit attorney must “proceed to institute such prosecution
as is required by law if, in the judgment of such circuit attorney, the
evidence presented to [her] is sufficient to justify a prosecution.” § 56.470.
42. The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department has alleged that police have
submitted more than 4,000 cases—some of them violent—to Respondent
for her review, but that Respondent has willfully neglected her official
duty or knowingly or willfully failed or refused to review these cases for
charges. Christine Byers, “Bryer’s Beat: An inside look at thousands of
cases going nowhere in St. Louis,” KSDK,
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/byers-beat-inside-look-thousands-
of-cases-going-nowhere-st-louis/63-e86e5af1-b9c4-48fe-afde-2e5eaa7b5030.
43. Respondent’s office has admitted that there are at least 3,000 cases that
have been submitted by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department that
are awaiting review by the Circuit Attorney. Id.
44. Respondent has willfully neglected her official duty or knowingly or
willfully failed or refused to review these pending charges, some of which
had been pending for more than a year, some of which may be violent. For
instance, police referred charges on a case where a family was terrorized
16
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
in their home by a woman who was attempting to break in. Christine
Byers, “Woman arrested after video showed her harassing family,” KSDK,
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/crime/woman-arrested-video-showed-
harassing-south-st-louis-family/63-c0709249-0f03-4c1b-9248-
a0001c2cc66c. According to news reports, Respondent failed to review the
case until the victims gained notoriety on TikTok by posing video footage
of the woman attempting to break into their home. Id.
45. Upon information and belief, Respondent’s willful neglect of her official
duty or knowingly or willfully failed or refused to prosecute cases has
resulted in a substantial drop in the number of criminal cases filed in the
22nd Judicial Circuit. Upon information and belief, the Circuit Attorney’s
Office filed 9,129 total cases in 2013, 3,334 of which were felonies. Upon
information and belief, the Circuit Attorney’s office filed 3,123 total cases
in 2022, 1,194 of which were felonies.
46. It is Respondent’s duty to consider reports of all crimes communicated to
her by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and to ascertain
whether there is evidence “sufficient to justify a prosecution.” Respondent
has willfully neglected her official duty or knowingly or willfully failed or
refused to review thousands of cases submitted to her by the local police.
Accordingly, Respondent has forfeited her office and is a usurper who
must be removed from office.
17
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
Relief Sought
47. Respondent’s willful neglect of her official duty or knowingly or willfully
failing or refusing to perform her duties with respect to the execution or
enforcement of the criminal laws of the state, singularly and collectively,
constitutes a violation of § 106.220 and results in Respondent’s forfeiture
of the office of Circuit Attorney of the City of St. Louis.
48. The Attorney General files this petition upon personal information. Rule
98.04 provides that this Court “shall issue a preliminary order in quo
warranto” when requested by the Attorney General.
49. So, the Attorney General requests that this Court issue a preliminary
order of quo warranto immediately removing Respondent because such an
order is necessary to maintain order, ensure just enforcement of the
criminal law, and most importantly, protect the public.
50. The Attorney General further requests that the Court, after a hearing,
issue a permanent writ of quo warranto removing Respondent from office.
Conclusion
WHEREFORE, Relator prays for a preliminary order of quo warranto
immediately removing Respondent from office, for a permanent writ of quo
warranto against Respondent removing her from office, for all taxable court
costs, and for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
18
Electronically Filed - City of St. Louis - February 23, 2023 - 12:00 PM
Respectfully submitted,
ANDREW BAILEY
Attorney General
/s/ Andrew Bailey
Attorney General
Missouri Bar #65758
/s/ William M. Corrigan, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Missouri Bar #33169
/s/ Shaun Mackelprang
Deputy Attorney General, Criminal
Missouri Bar #49627
/s/ Gregory M. Goodwin
Chief Counsel – Public Safety Section
Missouri Bar #65929
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(573) 751-7017
(573) 751-2096 Fax
gregory.goodwin@ago.mo.gov
Attorneys for Relator
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
emailed to the following individuals on February 23, 2022:
Kimberly M. Gardner
GardnerK@stlouiscao.org
/s/ Gregory M. Goodwin
Chief Counsel – Public Safety Section
19
