IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN WINFIELD )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:14-1022
)
TROY STEELE, Warden, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 59 (e)

The Court should alter or amend its Memorandum and Order (Doc. 16) and its
Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Execution (Doc.17), pursuant to Rule 59(e), and
because events after entry of judgment demonstrate the suit is moot.
Rule 59(e) relief is available in limited circumstances, including the need to
correct manifest errors of law and fact, and including the availability of new evidence
since the judgment. United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8
th

Cir. 2006). The Courts June 12, 2014 order and judgment is based on the Courts
premise that the Governors Office is unaware of Terry Coles declaration to Winfields
clemency counsel (Doc. 16, p. 9). As the Court description of the witnessess testimony
shows (Doc 16, pp. 1-8), Winfield presented no evidence to prove that factual issue at the
June 10, 2014 hearing. Winfield made no showing that the Governor is unaware of
Coles statements to clemency counsel.
2

Winfields failure to present such information is understandable, because Coles
statement to clemency counsel is a matter of public record. First, Winfield presented the
statement to the Court as Exhibit 2 to the Motion for Stay of Execution (Doc. 10-2) that
he filed on June 9. It is also attached as Motion Exhibit A. Second, the habeas hearing
record shows that the Court unsealed and published the statement by Cole at the
beginning of the June 10 hearing. Third, after judgment on June 12, 2014, Winfields
counsel made comments to the press about the nature of Coles statement.
Winfield attorney Joseph Luby said Cole supervised Winfield's
work at the prison and spends eight hours a day with him. He said Cole
has described Winfield as among the elite 1 percent of all inmates in
terms of his behavior, and is an inmate who has served as a mentor for
young prisoners.
This 20-year corrections staff member was made to fear for his
job when he wanted to tell the truth about Mr. Winfield's remarkable
rehabilitation and the positive good he will continue to do if his life is
spared, Luby said in a statement.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-grants-missouri-
inmate-stay-of-execution/ (last visited June 12, 2014). (Motion Exhibit
B).

Coles opinion about Winfield is in the public domain through case filings, the
declaration itself, and Winfield press statements. Additionally, one press report indicates
that the clemency application contains information very much like Mr. Coles:
Governor Nixon has more than one good reason to commute Mr.
Winfields sentence to life without parole. Taken together, the numerous
issues surrounding Mr. Winfields case make a compelling argument to
spare his life:

Mr. Winfield is a model prisoner who dedicates his time in
prison to helping others. A staff member at the Department of
Corrections has called him a changed man, citing how Mr. Winfield
looks after inmates in the special needs unit and cares for younger or
weaker inmates at the prison as examples of Mr. Winfields exceptional
3

work ethic and dedication to helping those who are in pain.
http://my.firedoglake.com/jscornejo/2014/06/11/victims-daughter-
former-juror-and-mo-naacp-urge-missouri-governor-to-grant-clemency-
to-model-prisoner/ (dated June 11, 2014, last visited on June 12, 2014).
(Motion Exhibit C).

Because the Governor has the information Winfield claims is chilled, the complaint is
moot.
Winfield did not fulfill his burden of proof. He did not allege or show that the
Governor was unaware of the information from Cole, nor could he because the
information is in the public domain. Moreover, Winfield submitted information repetitive
of the Cole declaration to the Governor.
Lastly, the Missouri Department of Corrections delivered to the Governors office
this afternoon the Cole declaration. (Motion Exhibit D).
Conclusion
In summary, Winfield did not show that the Missouri Department of Corrections
kept information away from the Governors consideration. And if Winfield did not
submit the declaration signed under penalty of perjury to the Governor (Motion Exhibit
A, p. 3), it has now been done for him. Under these circumstances, the Court should grant
the Rule 59(e) motion and alter or amend its judgment. The Court should deny
Winfields motions as moot.
Respectfully submitted,
CHRIS KOSTER
Attorney General

/s/Stephen D. Hawke
STEPHEN D. HAWKE
4

Assistant Attorney General
Missouri Bar No. 35242
P. O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(573) 751-8432
(573) 751-2096 fax
Stephen.Hawke@ago.mo.gov
Attorneys for Defendants


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and
correct copy of the foregoing was
electronically filed by using the
CM/ECF system. Service to
counsel for plaintiff is performed by
the filing and service through that
system, this 12 day of June, 2014,
to:

Joseph W. Luby
6155 Oak, Suite C
Kansas City, MO 64113

/s/Stephen D. Hawke
Stephen D. Hawke
Assistant Attorney General