advertisement

Missouri Supreme Court upholds conviction in death of police officer

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 | 3:57 p.m. CDT; updated 5:56 p.m. CDT, Tuesday, July 16, 2013

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the murder conviction of a man in the shooting of a Kirkwood police officer who had argued on appeal that jurors could have been swayed against him because of a police presence at his trial.

Kevin Johnson, who was 19 at the time, was sentenced to death for the July 2005 slaying of Sgt. Bill McEntee, who had been called twice to Johnson's neighborhood on the day he was killed.

Police were searching for Johnson on an alleged probation violation when his younger brother suffered a seizure in his home, and his family sought assistance from the police. McEntee was among the additional officers who responded to the scene of the medical emergency. Johnson's brother died at the hospital.

Later that day, McEntee returned to the neighborhood in response to a report about fireworks. Johnson approached McEntee "and said something to the effect of, 'you killed my brother,' " before shooting him multiple times in front other people, according to the Supreme Court decision.

His conviction and death sentence originally were upheld by the Supreme Court in May 2009.

In his latest appeal, Johnson's current attorneys raised about a dozen claims that his original trial lawyers were ineffective. Among other things, they argued that the presence of uniformed police who gathered in the courtroom and halls to watch the trial could have influenced jurors to find Johnson guilty.

Judge George Draper III rejected that argument in the Supreme Court's majority opinion. He wrote that there was no reason to believe jurors came into contact with any officers and noted that a large number of police could be in a courthouse during any trial.

Judges Patricia Breckenridge and Laura Denvir Stith dissented. They said the case should have been returned to a trial court for an evidentiary hearing on whether Johnson's trial attorneys were ineffective for not objecting to the police spectators.

"The presence of the uniformed officers reasonably may have created an outside influence on the jury, affecting the presumption of innocence necessary for a fair trial and impacting the harshness of the sentence imposed," Breckenridge wrote.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements