A St. Louis judge has declined to immediately remove Sheriff Alfred Montgomery from office at Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s request.
The attorney general’s team argued several points in the removal petition, called a quo warranto, on Wednesday, including that detainees’ lives were at risk because Montgomery allegedly failed to transport more than 60 people to receive medical care — as recently as that morning.
But Judge Steven R. Ohmer, the presiding judge, didn’t buy it.
“I think that’s a drastic step,” presiding Judge Steven R. Ohmer said of the Missouri attorney general’s removal efforts. “I don’t think we’re there at this point.”
Ohmer, a longtime 22nd Judicial Circuit judge, recently retired and was appointed by the Missouri Supreme Court to try the case after all of the circuit’s judges recused themselves due to conflicts of interest. The sheriff’s office provides security to their courtrooms.
The decision followed back-and-forth sparring between Montgomery’s attorneys David C. Mason, Matt Ghio and Justin Gelfand and Assistant Attorney General Gregory Goodwin, who was joined by five other assistant attorneys general.
At one point, their repartee was briefly interrupted by a woman in the gallery who yelled a question: Was Andrew Bailey one of the attorneys on the bench?
“You are not part of the procedures,” the judge said following the outburst. “You are not a participant as such, so to avoid chaos … this is not how we can proceed.”
While Wednesday’s hearing was supposed to be procedural to “create a road map” for the court to hear the case, the sheriff’s office instead challenged several charges in the removal petition.
Mason disputed claims that Montgomery violated the state’s nepotism law by hiring Malik Taylor — who the attorney general’s office alleges is Montgomery’s half brother and that the two share a father. But birth certificates reviewed by STLPR show Taylor’s does not list the sheriff’s father, who was present in the courtroom.
“I’m amazed that allegation is still part of their case,” Mason told the court. “All they may have is some person who heard Alfred refer to Malik as a brother, and they have nothing else.”
Mason also contested whether it is truly the sheriff’s office’s responsibility to transport detainees to the hospital. He said that detainees’ medical transportation falls under the city contract with the jail’s medical provider and that the sheriff’s department has no contractual responsibility for executing.
“Whoever has custody of the prisoner is exclusively the person responsible for the medical care,” the attorney told the press following the hearing. “There's nothing on the sheriff's back.”
Missouri Sen. Karla May, a Democrat from St. Louis, sat in the gallery during the hearing. Afterward, she said she felt compelled by Mason’s arguments. “I'm interested in… finally getting an answer and a conclusion to the role of the sheriff because statutorily, it doesn't say [medical transport is] his responsibility,” she said. “Just because something has been done traditionally doesn't mean it's his responsibility.”
St. Louis Alderman Matt Devoti is attempting to get to the root of that question and has filed legislation to define it, but Mason said it is not up to the municipal government to define an elected office outlined in state statute.
"There's some issues that are there that need to be effectively argued and litigated out," the sheriff’s attorney said. "I don't think that the sheriff's just going to sit there and let the Board of Aldermen or ... the mayor just start, you know, writing out: ‘You want to do this or you want to do that’ — no more than you know they can do it for … the attorney general or anybody else."
Goodwin said the status hearing wasn’t the venue to argue the points of the quo. Ohmer agreed.
“We’re not here… to go over counts,” said the assistant attorney general. “Your honor, this is not the right venue to allege or litigate the quo.”
Bailey and Montgomery eventually agreed on procedural ground rules and other scheduling logistics in the state’s effort to remove the 28-year-old sheriff from office roughly six months into the job. The dates could be moved if the court decides to do so.
- July 21: The sheriff’s office submits its answer to the quo warranto
- Aug. 29: All discovery completed
- Sept. 19: All motions filed
- Nov. 10: Bench trial begins
- Additional status hearings, if needed, on Aug. 29, Sept. 26, Oct. 29
Montgomery has disputed the charges laid out in the nearly 90-page quo warranto petition, including kidnapping and financial mismanagement. The sheriff has vowed to fight the allegations and serve out the remainder of his term.
The quo warranto petition — a rarely used legal mechanism that means “by what authority” — allows the state to challenge whether an elected official has the legal right to hold office. Bailey filed the action last week after Montgomery refused to resign amid mounting controversies and lawsuits surrounding his leadership and conduct.
Bailey has already filed at least five quo warranto actions in just over two years — a sharp contrast to the five filed by the previous four attorneys general combined.
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, Iron County Sheriff Jeffrey Burkett and Ray County Sheriff Scott Childers all eventually resigned after the attorney general filed the petitions against them. Cape Girardeau Coroner Wavis Jordan was removed from office after Bailey filed a petition against him, in part, for stealing from a dead man’s wallet.
Justin Gelfand, another of Montgomery’s attorneys, said the sheriff’s constituents should have say on whether the sheriff stays in office.
“If people are unhappy with how the sheriff is utilizing his time in office, then they have a remedy at the polling place at the next election,” he said. “But it is not up to the attorney general of Missouri to try to oust the will of the voters.”
Mason said he believes Montgomery and his legal team will ultimately prevail despite the removal attempt.
“Don't believe the hype. This is a court of law,” he said. “Hold the attorney general to his proof — period — because I intend to.”
This story has been updated.
