ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District has reversed a lower court’s decision and ruled in favor of Michael Holmes, ordering the City of St. Louis to pay a $2.5 million civil judgment stemming from a wrongful drug conviction based on the actions of two disgraced former St. Louis police officers.
The appellate court’s decision, authored by Presiding Judge James M. Dowd, found that the city of St. Louis, as the successor to the Board of Police Commissioners, is obligated to indemnify former St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department officers Shell Sharp and Bobby Lee Garrett.
The judgment relates to a 2016 civil jury award to Holmes, who spent more than five years in prison after being falsely accused and convicted on federal drug charges in 2006 based on fabricated evidence and testimony by Sharp and Garrett.
The events began on Dec. 9, 2003, when the officers falsely claimed they witnessed Holmes selling drugs outside his grandmother’s home on Cates Street.
They then allegedly found drugs on his person inside the residence. Their testimony led to Holmes’ conviction and a 25-year prison sentence.
But in 2011, an internal police investigation revealed a pattern of misconduct by both officers, prompting federal authorities to vacate Holmes’ convictions. The underlying charges were later dismissed, and Holmes was released from prison.
Holmes subsequently sued Sharp, Garrett and the Board of Police Commissioners alleging civil rights violations. The case culminated in a $2.5 million verdict in Holmes’ favor, which was upheld by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018.
Despite the affirmed judgment, Holmes was unable to collect payment. The state of Missouri had intervened post-trial to stay execution of the judgment, asserting that “the judgment will definitely be paid, either by the State of Missouri through its [State Legal Expense Fund] or by the City of St. Louis.” However, the Missouri Supreme Court later ruled in Holmes v. Steelman that Holmes’ claim did not qualify for direct payment from the State’s Legal Expense Fund.
Holmes then sought a declaratory judgment against the St. Louis, arguing it was responsible for indemnifying the officers under Special Order 3-05, a longstanding policy enacted by the Board in 2004 governing legal defense and indemnification for police officers.
The city argued it bore no legal duty to indemnify the officers because their misconduct occurred while the police department was under state control.
The appellate court rejected the city’s arguments and found that the Board, and by extension the City, had agreed to indemnify the officers.
The court highlighted that after receiving indemnification requests from Sharp and Garrett in January 2013, the Board forwarded the matter to the Missouri Attorney General under the Legal Expense Fund statute without denying the indemnification requests or revoking them later under its policy.
“The Board’s referral to the AG pursuant to SLEF is tantamount to a referral for representation and indemnity,” the court wrote. “And the City stands in the shoes of the Board.”
The court noted that this was not a routine case of legal representation but one in which the Board’s actions triggered the Attorney General’s broad authority to defend and settle civil claims against officers. The City, the court found, had maintained the appearance of indemnification until payment came due.
“The result would be the same — the duped mark, Mr. Holmes, ends up holding an empty bag instead of one filled with his affirmed money judgment,” the court stated, likening the case to a game of three-card monte.
The court further noted that the city has previously paid similar judgments or settlements stemming from officer misconduct while the police department was under state control, citing recent cases where the city paid out hundreds of thousands to millions in damages and attorneys’ fees.
Finding no material facts in dispute, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the city and instead entered summary judgment in favor of Holmes.
The court held that the city is obligated to pay the $2.5 million judgment originally entered against Sharp and Garrett.
Judges Lisa P. Page and Christopher K. Limbaugh concurred with the opinion.
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District case number: ED112676
