Kurtis Watkins at Jefferson City Correctional Center, in February 2024 (Clara Bates/Missouri Independent).
A St. Louis man sentenced to 25 years in prison based solely on the testimony of one police officer is asking a federal court to vacate his conviction.
Kurtis Watkins, a 35-year-old Black man, was found guilty on nine felony counts related to a 2013 shooting in the Dutchtown neighborhood of St. Louis.
Watkins denies any involvement, and the only evidence tying him to the crime was an eyewitness account from a white police officer named Steven Pinkerton.
Watkins’ attorney filed a petition Monday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri arguing the conviction violates federal law after new evidence about Pinkerton’s past came to light last month following a months-long investigation by The Independent.
The Independent found that Pinkerton had a history of racist social media posts denigrating Black people. And less than a year prior to Watkins’ arrest, Pinkerton placed a banned chokehold on a Black man he mistakenly believed was the suspect in an earlier robbery.
The man died at the scene.
Neither the social media posts nor the mistaken identification was disclosed to Watkins’ attorneys or the jury at trial, something Watkins’ attorney says would have undermined Pinkerton’s credibility as a witness.
“A reasonable fact finder would have acquitted Mr. Watkins of all charges,” Jonathan Sternberg, Watkins’ attorney, wrote in the petition.
The petition asks for the court to hold an evidentiary hearing, issue a writ of habeas corpus and vacate the conviction on two grounds.
First, it argues Watkins’ attorney at the original trial was constitutionally ineffective because he failed to call the friend Watkins was with that night to testify. Second, it argues the state violated rules of evidence disclosure in failing to turn over credibility evidence about Pinkerton’s past.
The law, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the 1963 Brady v. Maryland case, requires prosecutors to notify defense attorneys of credibility issues with witnesses when they could materially affect the outcome of a case.
The petition also includes a new piece of information about Pinkerton provided to Watkins’ attorney by a retired judge.
Former St. Louis Circuit Judge Rex Burlison reached out to Sternberg after The Independent’s investigation was published, according to the petition. Burlison relayed an account of Pinkerton’s behavior in his courtroom when Pinkerton was being considered for a jury in 2017. Burlison provided a transcript of the interaction.
During jury selection, Pinkerton told lawyers he didn’t think he’d be able to follow the law as instructed by the judge.
Burlison then took what the petition calls the “extraordinary step” of calling Pinkerton into the chambers to discuss those statements. Pinkerton’s comments regarding what he and Burlison agreed could be seen as “selective enforcement of the law” by an officer prompted Burlison to say, according to the transcript: “Officer, you and I don’t know each other, but I’m embarrassed for you and the St. Louis department.”
The incident occurred after Watkins’ trial, so it wouldn’t be considered evidence the state failed to turn over. But Sternberg argues it “shows Officer Pinkerton’s bias is not limited to a few statements on social media, nor isolated to his personal life.”
Neither Burlison nor Pinkerton responded to requests for comment.
Pinkerton left the St. Louis Metro Police in 2021 and is now an officer at the Moscow Mills Police Department, which also didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The habeas case was assigned to a magistrate judge, Rodney Holmes. Both Watkins and the state need to consent to the judge and if not, the case will be reassigned to one of the federal district judges. Sternberg said they’re consenting to the judge, and the attorney general’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Holmes is a former federal public defender and assistant U.S. attorney.
The judge will then set a deadline for the attorney general’s office to file a response to the habeas petition — usually with a 30-day deadline. Sternberg will then reply to that, and the judge will decide the case.
The judge could decide to hold an evidentiary hearing, which Sternberg said would allow them to prove their claims about Pinkerton, since they’re new claims no previous courts have evaluated. The judge could allow discovery. The judge could also grant or deny the petition outright.
Sternberg said habeas cases can take months or years and that he can’t predict the timeline for this.
Several legal experts have said Watkins’ case has strong claims, but that winning a habeas petition is often procedurally challenging.
Sean O’Brien, a law professor at University of Missouri-Kansas City who has worked on several high-profile wrongful conviction cases, said the habeas process is “very restricted, very procedurally complex and very unforgiving.”
Watkins’ attorney also plans to submit his case for review by the St. Louis city circuit attorney’s conviction integrity unit, which can file motions to set aside or vacate judgments they find to be in error.
O’Brien said the conviction integrity unit is a “very important avenue to pursue” in this case.
Watkins said, from prison, he’s “feeling hopeful” and dreams of the day he’ll walk out the doors.
Alibi witness
The petition argues that Watkins’ original public defender was ineffective for failing to call his friend, Christopher Ransfer, as an alibi witness.
Watkins was at Ransfer’s house the night of the shooting from 7 p.m. until around 12:30 a.m. before leaving to walk to the convenience store for liquor, according to Ransfer’s testimony at a post-conviction relief hearing in 2021. The shooting happened just past midnight, the prosecutor said during Watkins’ original trial.
Ransfer said he would have testified at Watkins’ original trial if Watkins’ attorney had called him.
“Simply put,” the petition states, “if the jury had heard and believed Mr. Ransfer, it would have had a reasonable doubt as to Mr. Watkins’ involvement and acquitted him. “
But a state court of appeals in late 2023 rejected that argument in part on the basis that Sternberg hadn’t filed paperwork correctly. Sternberg wrote in the petition that “the record shows counsel clearly timely and properly deposited the letter.”
Credibility
The petition argues Watkins’ right to due process and a fair trial were violated by the state’s failure to disclose Pinkerton’s “extreme history of making discriminatory remarks targeted at black people and engaging in discriminatory behaviors when acting as a law enforcement officer.”
In 2017, Pinkerton was admonished by Judge Rex Burlison and dismissed from jury duty because of his comments on selective enforcement of the law, according to the petition.
Pinkerton told lawyers during jury selection that he didn’t think he’d be able to follow the law as instructed by the judge.
“What kind of example [do] you think that…provided for the other 57 people when twice today you said that you would be the one to decide whether you follow the court’s instructions?” Burlison asked, according to the transcript of the proceeding.
Pinkerton said he had “his own rational thoughts and feelings on that subject.”
When asked whether that’s how he enforces laws as an officer — with his own thoughts — Pinkerton said: “There is some level of discretion in doing police work.”
When the judge asked whether Pinkerton thought other potential jurors could’ve seen his answers as “selective enforcement of the law by you,” Pinkerton said, “I guess they could, yes.”
Burlison removed him from the case.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.