SAINT LOUIS. UNIVERSITY seHooLoriuw March 4, 2024 Honorable Michael Parson Governor Capitol Building Room 216 Jefferson City, MO'65101 Re: Clemency Petition for Brian Dorsey Dear Governor Parson, There ae rare cases where those of us whe siti judgment ofa man convicted of epital ‘murder got it wrong. The decisions aiming Brian Dorsey's death sentence is just such a case, even though there eno dispute that Mr. Dorey killed the tivo victims inthe cas. While there ae many reasons that others may cite in suppor of Mr. Dorsey's Petition for Clemency (aot the least of which are the pleas from his corectiona insition’s officers), mine relates toa rare filing of the legal system itself I was one ofthe Missouri Supreme ‘Court judges who upheld the judgment including his sentence of death i the direct appeal ‘of Mr Dorsey's case in 2008, At tha time, none of us an the Court were aware of how ‘compromised snd inefTctve his rial lawyers were. The fist defect, which undoubtedly influenced everything, was tht the two lryers who were appointed to represent Mr Dorsey were paid a flat fee by the Missouri Public Defender System. Missour Public Defenders now do not ue the fat fee for defense in recognition ofthe professional standard that such an arrangement gives the attorney an inherent financial conflict of interest. in this case, one ofthe basic preparations were done to determine whether Mr Dorsey iuly was eligible forthe death penalty. ‘The undisputed fact that Mr- Dorsey killed the two vets inthis case doesnot qualify ‘im forthe death penalty nthe eicurstances of Mr. Dorsey's case, which was before the Court on direct appeal and pet-conviction appeal, the attorneys andthe Cour did not ‘now what we now know, that Mr. Dorsey was ina drug induced psychosis atthe time of the crime and incapable of deliberation, which isthe required mental state for capital ‘murder. The fact that Mr. Dorsey’sattormeys pleaded him guilty with desth penalty as 8 possibilty, without doing the exper evaluation or investigtion which would have shown ‘hate hada viable defense to the death penalty, was clearly caused or inuced bythe conflict crested by the fat fee arrangement. Had these atomeyes done even the minimum ‘work on this racial point, they would have known that he had a defense ad that they actually could and should negotiate a guilty ple without the imposition ofthe death ‘sentence oF go to trial and make tat case before the jury. “The legal system has changed regarding at fees in capital eases since 2008, when Mf. Dorsey was convicted. Missouri State Public Defender no longer does this arrangement, as {have noted, and Mary Fox, director ofthe Public Defender Program, quite clear about this. The Public Defender recognizes now that this isa confit of interest ofa financial ‘ature that skews the sentences with unfortunate and dire results and violates best practices as delineated by the American Bar Assocation and is contrary othe Missouri Roles of Professional Conduct. Noe ofthis wa evident a the time I at in judgment of ‘Me. Dorsey's direct appeal, nor was it known tothe court when there was a subsequent appeal of his Rule 29:15 post-conviction matter, where the question of competency of ‘counsel is litigated, Higher purpose. Greater good.Mr. Dorsey is an outstanding candidate for clemency. The ony thing that Lwould suggest, and [believe Mr Dorsey is requesting, is that he be relieved of being exectted by the State. He will ofcourse spend the rest of his life in prison forthe ermeshehas commited. Executing Mr. Dorsey, however, wil dishonor our systems Of eapital punishment, | sincerely ask you to take this ino account in termining how you execite the discretion Ua ous Consttuion gives to you sid you lone, wo grantor deny clemency to MF, sade, rete; Dean, retired rofestor Emerine Saint Louis University School of Law 100 N. Tucker Biv, St Louis, MO 65101 Gia 6914377 Professional email: mike77wolfRaigmail com