Befitting a man who’s brought no shortage of chaos to the city, Sheriff Alfred Montgomery‘s first day in court was a lively affair, replete with a disruption from the peanut gallery, an offer for the sheriff’s dad to testify he is not in fact the father of an alleged half-brother, and even a marriage announcement from one of the attorneys seeking to oust Montgomery from office. All this during a hearing that is normally little more than an opportunity for both parties to get on the same page with scheduling.
Montgomery’s attorney, retired Circuit Court Judge David Mason, came out swinging, saying that Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s petition to remove the sheriff contained assertions that Bailey knew were false.
Get a fresh take on the day’s top news
Subscribe to the St. Louis Daily newsletter for a smart, succinct guide to local news from award-winning journalists Sarah Fenske and Ryan Krull.
Mason was most full-throated in rebutting the charge of nepotism, which is the first count in Bailey’s petition—called a quo warranto—to remove Montgomery from office. Bailey claims the sheriff hired his half-brother, Malik Taylor. If true, some legal observers have said it’s enough to force the sheriff’s removal, as nepotism is illegal under state law. But Mason said the sheriff’s father was in court and ready to testify that Taylor was not, in fact, Montgomery’s half-brother. He also submitted as evidence to the judge a copy of both Montgomery’s and Taylor’s birth certificates.
“He sits there, knowing that this is a false allegation,” Mason said of his opposing counsel.
“I was in [the AG’s office],” Mason continued. “John Ashcroft would never have sent me into court with something like this.” Mason said that it was his understanding that the nepotism charge against Montgomery was based on little more than someone saying they heard Montgomery refer to Taylor as his “brother.”
Assistant Attorney General Greg Goodwin remarked that today’s hearing, a scheduling hearing, was not the time to argue over these specifics. “We’re not here to try count one, or any other counts, in court,” he said.
But about those birth certificates: When reporters viewed copies after the hearing, the one for Montgomery listed both a mother and a father, whereas Taylor’s lists only a mother. So while the burden of proof remains on Bailey’s shoulders, the documents are seemingly not exculpatory on their face.
The hearing kicked off with a random woman from the gallery standing up to ask the judge where Bailey was, a disruption Judge Steven R. Ohmer abided in a patient manner, which court observers say is very much in character for the man who came out of retirement to oversee the quo warranto case.
Bailey’s absence form the courtroom was not particularly unusual. Representing Bailey was a slew of attorneys, most notably Goodwin, who was a major presence in the state’s case to remove Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner from office two years ago.
Goodwin argued that Montgomery ought to be removed from office immediately, telling Ohmer that as recently as July 4, the sheriff was refusing to transport detainees from jail to the hospital when they were in need of medical care. (This mirrors count four in Bailey’s removal petition.)
Mason countered that the care of detainees is the duty of the city and its corrections division, not the sheriff. He handed to the judge a copy of a contract the city had entered into with a medical provider which, Mason said, stated as much.
“Mason brought the heat,” one observer noted.
The relatively full audience to his efforts included Alderwoman Alisha Sonnier, who says she is concerned about a state official removing an elected city official. Sonnier herself has subjected Montgomery to tough questions as a member of the aldermanic budget committee—but said the usurpation of voters’ will was concerning. “I wish there was a way for the city’s voters to have the say on if he’s removed or not because that’s who duly elected him,” she added in a text. “The people who elect us should be the ones with the power to remove us.”
Afterwards, Sonnier said that she was glad the judge denied the attorney general’s office request that Montgomery be removed immediately, which she said struck her as “drastic and unwarranted.”
Also in attendance was state Senator Karla May (D-St. Louis). She said that she too was impressed by Mason’s defense and added that, on the issue of Montgomery’s alleged half-brother, it seems plausible that Montgomery may have referred to Taylor as his brother when the two just grew up together but were not blood related. This is extremely common in the Black community, she said.
Today’s hearing lasted about an hour, and the two parties eventually got around to scheduling. A proposed trial date was discarded because it conflicted with Goodwin’s getting married later this year. Goodwin said something to the effect that if they schedule the trial for that week, “I’ll have some problems.”
“He will!” chirped Mason.
A trial date was set for November 10.
This story has been updated to clarify a comment from Alderwoman Alisha Sonnier.
