Jessie McKim v. Jay Cassady, Warden, JCCC
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 56
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Jessie McKim was convicted in 1999 of first-degree murder for the suffocation death of Wendy Wagnon; conviction rested on eyewitness testimony and Dr. Jay Dix’s autopsy opinion that cause of death was asphyxiation.
- At trial several nonmedical witnesses placed McKim at the scene, described threats and statements by McKim about killing a "snitch," and related extrajudicial admissions implicating him.
- Post-conviction, new opinions from six pathologists (five for McKim, one for the State in habeas) concluded petechiae were non‑specific and toxicology suggested methamphetamine toxicity as a possible cause of death; none could exclude homicide as the manner of death.
- McKim filed successive habeas petitions claiming (1) freestanding actual innocence based on new expert opinions and Dix’s book, (2) gateway cause-and-prejudice or manifest-injustice to review procedurally defaulted constitutional claims (perjury/Brady/ineffective assistance/prosecutorial misconduct/corpus delicti), and (3) a Thirteenth Amendment involuntary-servitude claim.
- Trial and appellate courts previously denied relief; this Court held earlier appellate denials by order were “without prejudice,” considered the merits of the new habeas petition, and ultimately denied relief with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McKim) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new expert opinions and Dix’s book establish freestanding actual innocence (entitling new trial) | New pathologist opinions and Dix’s published statement about petechiae show cause of death was methamphetamine toxicity, not suffocation, so McKim is actually innocent of the charged crime | The new opinions merely present an expert disagreement; non-medical evidence and Dix’s trial testimony still support suffocation; new evidence would not make it more likely than not that no reasonable juror would convict | Denied — new evidence fails both preponderance (gateway) and clear-and-convincing (freestanding) standards |
| Whether new evidence opens gateway of manifest injustice (actual innocence) permitting review of procedurally defaulted claims | New evidence meets gateway standard so court should reach underlying constitutional claims | Even with new evidence, reasonable juror could convict based on eyewitness and extrajudicial statements; gateway not satisfied | Denied — gateway not established |
| Whether McKim established cause for procedural default (to reach Brady/perjury claims) by showing State withheld materials or used perjured testimony | State failed to disclose Dix’s book/notes and withheld instances where McFarland suspected overdose; Dix’s testimony was therefore possibly perjured or impeachable | Dix’s book was public (not Brady material); no proof notes existed; disagreement among experts/available materials do not show State knowingly used perjured testimony | Denied — no external cause or Brady/perjury showing; no prejudice shown |
| Whether continued incarceration violates the Thirteenth Amendment because the crime never occurred | If new evidence shows no crime, incarceration is involuntary servitude and unconstitutional | Claim repackages actual innocence arguments; no independent Thirteenth Amendment basis; gateway not met | Denied — claim is not independently cognizable or is procedurally barred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McKim, 39 S.W.3d 930 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (affirming McKim’s conviction)
- McKim v. State, 116 S.W.3d 599 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (affirming denial of Rule 29.15 motion)
- Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 996 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. banc 1999) (summary appellate orders are not conclusive on the merits)
- State ex rel. Nixon v. Jaynes, 63 S.W.3d 210 (Mo. banc 2001) (habeas is a civil proceeding; procedural limits on successive petitions)
- Clay v. Dormire, 37 S.W.3d 214 (Mo. banc 2000) (manifest injustice/gateway standard requires showing no reasonable juror would convict)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (definition and framework for actual-innocence gateway)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013) (timing of discovery of new evidence affects assessment of actual-innocence claims)
- State ex rel. Amrine v. Roper, 102 S.W.3d 541 (Mo. banc 2003) (recognition of freestanding actual innocence in Missouri and distinctions between gateway and freestanding claims)
- State v. Madorie, 156 S.W.3d 351 (Mo. banc 2005) (corpus delicti explained)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady duty and prejudice inquiry)