Contemptible Kim Gardner: St. Louis Judge Lowers the Boom on Embattled Circuit Attorney

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s tenure has been marked by controversy. Lest anyone question whether that’s an exaggeration, here’s just a small sampling of RedState’s coverage of Gardner’s disastrous reign as the city’s top prosecutor:

There’s plenty more, but you get the idea. If Gardner were merely a Soros-backed idealogue hellbent on “reimagining” the criminal justice system, it would be bad enough. But on top of that, she’s demonstrated repeatedly that she’s utterly incompetent. So much so that, in addition to facing a September trial on quo warranto proceedings brought by Attorney General Andrew Bailey to remove her from office, Gardner faced not one but two hearings this week requiring her to show cause as to why she should not be held in contempt of court.

Gardner managed to escape a finding of contempt in Monday’s hearing (for which she did not personally appear), but at Thursday’s hearing (for which she again did not personally appear), St. Louis Circuit Judge Michael Noble finally lowered the boom. Describing Gardner’s office as “a rudderless ship of chaos,” Noble held that there was sufficient evidence to find that Gardner and Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Desilets had acted with “intentional disregard for the judicial process” and announced that he would be appointing a special prosecutor to pursue a case of “indirect criminal contempt” against them both. (Video of the proceedings is included below and is worth the watch.)

The finding stems from the failure of Gardner or anyone from her office to appear before the court on April 10th for trial on a case involving the shooting of an 11-year-old girl.

Noble’s decision marked the latest legal controversy for Gardner, whose office has been criticized for years for understaffing and dysfunction. Those issues reached a boiling point in recent months when the handling of a robbery case sparked calls for Gardner’s resignation. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit seeking her removal.

Then, on Monday, Noble ordered Gardner to show cause for why she shouldn’t be held in contempt over the case of Steven L. Vincent Jr. 28, who faces nine charges, including first-degree assault, after police say he shot a gun in the city’s Jeff-Vander-Lou neighborhood and hit an apartment building, striking an 11-year-old girl in the arm as she sat in a bedroom.

His trial was supposed to begin on April 10, but Desilets did not appear. Another prosecutor told Noble at the hearing that Desilets was dealing with a medical issue and was on his way to the doctor’s office. Noble set a status hearing for two weeks later.

But on that date — Monday — Desilets did not appear again.

He told Noble on Thursday that he had to take care of business in front of another judge for a trial setting that morning, but once he finished up there, he showed up to Noble’s courtroom and the doors were locked.

Noble asked Desilets why he didn’t inform the court that he was running late, and Desilets said it is common practice in St. Louis courts for attorneys to bounce between judges and divisions for hearings on any given day. Many people regularly show up late, he said.

In fact, Desilets said to the judge, “Every lawyer is late to a division every day unless he’s unemployed.” Under close questioning from the judge, he further explained that he meant this as a way of noting the busy schedule of attorneys covering multiple dockets and the culture and practice of the circuit. Noble appeared unimpressed by this explanation, as well as with the fact that the “designee” who Gardner selected to appear for her (Assistant Circuit Attorney Rob Huq) wasn’t particularly familiar with the investigation into what had led to the (multiple) missed court dates.

When Gardner’s counsel, Michael Downey, attempted to provide additional details regarding that investigation, Judge Noble pointed to the Show Cause Order which required Gardner (or a designated Assistant Circuit Attorney) to appear at Thursday’s hearing and provide the court with evidence as to why they should not be held in contempt, noting that Downey was neither Gardner nor her appointed designee. In short, he wasn’t having it.

After a brief recess, the proceeding resumed and Noble stated:

The Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner was served with a Notice and Order to Show Cause directing her or a designated Assistant Circuit Attorney to appear before this court on April 27, 2023, to show cause why she should not be held in contempt based on an alleged willful failure to appear in Division 22 on April 10th and April 24th. Ms. Gardner did not appear. Assistant Circuit Attorney Mr. Huq appeared on her behalf and Assistant Attorney Mr. Chris Desilets appeared.

The question before the court is whether Ms. Gardner and Mr. Desilets’ failure to appear on April 10th and April 24th amount to disdain and disrespect for the court. The Circuit Attorney’s Office appears to be a rudderless ship of chaos. Ms. Gardner is the Circuit Attorney, and it is her duty to manage the caseload of each staff member. Mr. Desilets has approximately 104 felony cases. Any prudent practitioner would expect such a caseload to create countless irreconcilable conflicts. It does not appear she has made any reasonable efforts to prevent the resulting chaos. It appears that Ms. Gardner has complete indifference and a conscious disregard for the judicial process.

There is sufficient evidence of disdain and disrespect for the judicial process to determine that both Ms. Gardner and Mr. Desilets’ conduct support a finding of indirect criminal contempt. Furthermore, an attorney’s violation of a court’s order constitutes an intentional disobedience and shows a clear intent to disregard the power and authority of the judicial system — process. If a court allows such disobedience to continue, then its orders will become ineffective, thereby undermining the judicial system. The court finds that there is the requisite conduct and intent which could support a finding of intentional disregard for the judicial process.

Ms. Gardner has counsel. Mr. Desilets has the right to retain counsel. Both will be afforded their due process rights to discovery and to prepare a defense. The procedure for indirect criminal contempt is governed by Rule 36.01(b). Pursuant to that rule, this court will appoint a special prosecutor for this matter. The court will allow a reasonable time for preparation of defense. Accordingly, the court sets the matter for hearing on Tuesday, May 30th, 2023, at 9:30 a.m.

My first day of law school was a long time ago — 33 years this August, in fact. But I still remember, clear as day, the Number One Lesson imparted by my Civil Procedure professor on that first day: “Don’t piss off the judge.” It stood me in pretty good stead during my legal career. It seems that Kim Gardner hasn’t yet learned that lesson, but she may be about to.