Petition for Writ of Certiorari: Weinhaus v. Missouri - In Conference before the US Supreme Court (6/26/2025).

A Petition for Writ of Certiorari: Weinhaus v. Missouri goes before the Supreme Court in a conference today (6/26/2025).

Mr. Weinhaus is asking the Supreme Court to review a decision by the Missouri Supreme Court. This case presents critical federal law questions because the Missouri court's ruling clashes with existing Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, the issue is whether a blameless habeas petitioner, who later uncovers hidden, exculpatory evidence that discredits a key witness, can have their due process claim heard in a state forum designed for such claims. The Missouri court summarily dismissed Mr. Weinhaus’ undisputed claims of non-disclosure, which directly contradicts this Court’s decisions in Smith v. Cain (2012) and Wearry v. Cain (2016).

The core of the case revolves around an incident where an officer shot Mr. Weinhaus multiple times, alleging Mr. Weinhaus tried to draw a pistol—a claim Mr. Weinhaus denies. What was concealed by the State was that this officer had been fired after the shooting because his previously diagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder rendered him unfit for duty. The officer himself admitted he was "fearful of pulling a gun and shooting someone when they are merely reaching into their back pocket for a wallet." This crucial evidence, detailed in Weinhaus v. Adams, Mo. S. Ct. No. 100827, Exhibit 6, p. 9, was withheld.

Despite Mr. Weinhaus's trial counsel requesting exculpatory evidence, statements from the officer, and inquiries into the officer's health, the State's responses were misleading and actively hid the officer's impaired condition. This vital information only surfaced years later when the Missouri Court of Appeals published Folsom v. Missouri State Highway Patrol, et al. (2019), which affirmed the denial of the officer’s wrongful termination lawsuit. By then, Mr. Weinhaus’s appeals and post-conviction motions had long been denied, making this evidence undiscoverable to him at the time.

Under Missouri law (Rule 91 and State ex rel. Bailey v. Horsman (2024)), constitutional claims can be reviewed via habeas corpus if a petitioner can show "cause-and-prejudice" to excuse not including the claim in their initial post-conviction motion. Importantly, the concealment of exculpatory evidence, a violation of Brady v. Maryland (1963), satisfies this cause-and-prejudice standard in Missouri (State ex rel. Engel v. Dormire (2010)).

Nonetheless, Missouri courts summarily denied Mr. Weinhaus’s clear due process claim. They did so without allowing any factual development or a hearing, directly violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

☆