State ex rel. Gardner v. Boyer, 561 S.W.3d 389

Background

Defendant Wendell Davis was charged with multiple offenses after Officer A.F. shot and paralyzed him; Officer A.F. was both a victim and material witness.
The St. Louis Circuit Attorney's Office (CAO), led by Relator Kimberly Gardner, opened an independent public-integrity review of Officer A.F.'s use of force while the CAO continued prosecuting Davis.
Officer A.F.'s counsel filed a motion to disqualify the entire CAO from prosecuting Davis, claiming an appearance of impropriety from the CAO’s concurrent review.
The trial judge (Respondent) sua sponte disqualified the entire CAO without identifying any particular CAO attorney with an actual conflict; Relator sought prohibition.
This Court granted a preliminary writ, later made permanent, concluding the trial court’s order failed to follow the Lemasters framework and would cause irreparable harm to the elected prosecutor and the public if left in place.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Relator)	Defendant's Argument (Respondent/Officer A.F.)	Held
Whether a circuit court may disqualify an entire prosecutor's office absent an identified individual attorney conflict	Lemasters requires a court first identify an individual prosecutor's conflict before considering office-wide imputation; no individual conflict exists here, so disqualification is improper	The court has inherent authority to disqualify counsel and an appearance of impropriety exists because the CAO prosecuted Davis while reviewing the officer whose testimony it would use	Trial court erred: absent an identified individual conflict, office-wide disqualification is improper under Lemasters; writ granted permanently
Mootness: whether the case was moot after the trial court vacated its disqualification order	Relator: case falls under exceptions (post-submission mootness and public-interest/recurring issue), so review is appropriate	Respondent: vacatur rendered the case moot and it should be dismissed	Not moot under the first exception (vacatur occurred after submission); Court exercised discretion to decide merits; public-interest exception also applicable
Availability of extraordinary writ / irreparable harm from disqualification	Disqualification inflicts absolute irreparable harm: it prevents the elected prosecutor from exercising statutory duties and overrides voters’ choice for representation	Trial court has authority to supervise attorney conduct; disqualification justified to avoid impropriety	Writ appropriate: disqualification would cause irreparable harm to the prosecutor and the public; extraordinary relief granted

Key Cases Cited

State v. Lemasters, 456 S.W.3d 416 (Mo. banc) (establishes framework for office-wide disqualification: identify individual conflict first, then consider imputation or appearance-of-impropriety test)
State ex rel. Peters-Baker v. Round, 561 S.W.3d 380 (Mo. banc) (applies Lemasters and addresses when prohibition is appropriate; discussed mootness exceptions)
State ex rel. Douglas Toyota III, Inc. v. Keeter, 804 S.W.2d 750 (Mo. banc) (extraordinary writ/prohibition standard; irreparable harm and narrow application)
State v. Ross, 829 S.W.2d 948 (Mo. banc) (recognizes appearance-of-impropriety test can require office-wide disqualification to protect fairness of trial)
State v. Jones, 268 S.W. 83 (Mo. banc) (trial court authority to disqualify counsel when conflicts exist)