Case Title: In re J.A.T.

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC99251

State: missouri

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Date: 2022-01-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
en banc 
IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.T., 
  ) 
  ) 
Appellant, 
  ) 
  ) 
v. 
  ) 
No.  SC99251 
  ) 
JACKSON COUNTY JUVENILE 
  ) 
OFFICE, 
  ) 
Respondent. 
  ) 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY 
The Honorable Jalilah Otto, Judge 
The Jackson County circuit court found J.A.T. committed acts that would 
constitute first-degree assault and armed criminal action if committed by an adult.  J.A.T. 
appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in requiring J.A.T. to participate in the 
adjudication hearing via two-way video because it violated J.A.T.'s rights to due process 
and confrontation under the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution. 
The circuit court's judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded.  
Facts and Procedural History 
The Jackson County juvenile officer filed a petition alleging J.A.T. committed acts 
that would constitute first-degree assault, first-degree attempted robbery, and two counts 
of armed criminal action if committed by an adult.  The juvenile officer alleged J.A.T. 
Opinion issued January 11, 2022
 
2 
committed the acts personally, or with an accomplice for whom J.A.T. would be 
criminally responsible, and knowingly caused serious physical injury to the alleged 
victim, Dalvon Stiner, by shooting him multiple times.   
 
The adjudication hearing was continued multiple times by J.A.T. and the circuit 
court.1  Prior to the adjudication hearing, J.A.T. filed an "Objection to Adjudication by 
Video" and argued J.A.T. had a right under the United States Constitution, the Missouri 
Constitution, and Missouri statute to be adjudicated in person and to confront adverse 
witnesses in person.  At a pretrial conference, which occurred via two-way video 
conferencing, J.A.T. objected to proceeding with the adjudication hearing "in this fashion 
on video" based on the previously filed "Objection to Adjudication by Video."  The 
circuit court noted the juvenile officer had not yet filed a response to that objection, and 
stated: "We don't know what the condition of things, public health-wise will be on [the 
adjudication hearing date]. . . .  I have looked at the request that you're making, but at this 
time I'm not going to rule on it until closer to [the adjudication hearing date]."  The 
juvenile officer filed a "Response to Juvenile's Objection to Adjudication by Video" and 
argued a two-way video hearing would protect J.A.T.'s constitutional rights and it was 
appropriate due to the COVID-19 pandemic.   
 
The circuit court conducted the adjudication hearing, requiring J.A.T. to 
participate via two-way live video from the juvenile detention facility.  Only J.A.T. 
                                              
1 The circuit court continued the adjudication hearing once on its own order "due to compelling 
and extenuating circumstances which include public health concerns related to the ongoing 
pandemic."   
 
3 
appeared by two-way video.2  The circuit judge, J.A.T.'s attorney, the juvenile officer's 
attorney, a deputy juvenile officer, a victim services representative, J.A.T.'s parents, and 
the witnesses appeared in person at the hearing.  J.A.T. renewed the objection to the 
circuit court requiring J.A.T. to attend via two-way video.  The circuit court overruled the 
objection and stated its reasoning for doing so:  
And just I think I've said this before or not in this case, but I have in 
other cases.  In the times of the pandemic, of the coronavirus and      
COVID-19, we've had to make a number of significant adjustments to how 
we do things in court.   
One of them is utilizing the Webex technology, which the [Missouri] 
Supreme Court has explicitly given us permission to do so.  That coupled 
with the fact that there have been numerous detention facilities who have 
had difficulty maintaining—or not maintaining, keeping COVID-19 out of 
their facilities.  Our facility has done a great job of doing that.  We want to 
keep doing that.  
One of the policies being put in place by the detention center of the 
Family Court is that the juveniles will not be transported to and from court 
to limit the exposure to germs of that particular juvenile as well as 
additional juveniles in detention.  The Court believes that's reasonable for 
them to make such a policy.  It's reasonable for the Court to follow it.3   
Furthermore, following the Webex procedure as outlined by the 
[Missouri] Supreme Court, I don't believe, violates [J.A.T.'s] due process 
rights in any way.  For that reason, I will deny your request to have [J.A.T.] 
here in person. 
 
(Footnote added).   
Contrary to the circuit court's statements, this Court was careful to ensure its order 
incorporating the operational directives would not be interpreted to permit the violation 
                                              
2 An intern for J.A.T.'s attorney was present in the detention facility with J.A.T. during the 
adjudication hearing.  J.A.T.'s attorney also relocated to the detention facility during a recess in 
the hearing and presented closing argument from the detention facility with J.A.T. via two-way 
video.   
3 Exhibit A, Supreme Court of Missouri en banc, In re: Operation Directives for Easing  
COVID-19 Restrictions on In-Person Proceedings (May 4, 2020); Exhibit B, Circuit Court of 
Jackson County, Missouri, 16th Judicial Circuit, In Re: Updated Court Operations upon Re-
Opening of Courthouses Administrative Order 2020-084 (May 14, 2020). 
 
4 
of a juvenile's constitutional or statutory rights.  Whether a hearing was required to be 
held during a pandemic—or continued until a hearing could be held safely—is a different 
issue than whether the law requires a hearing to be held in person and the juvenile and the 
witnesses be required to appear face-to-face.  Once a circuit court determines an 
adjudication hearing must be held, nothing in this Court's Operational Directives 
expressly permit prohibiting the accused juvenile from appearing in person if he objects 
to appearing remotely.  
This Court's Operational Directives, entered May 4, 2020, specifically provided 
that "[p]roceedings pursuant to chapters 210 and 211 pertaining to juvenile 
delinquency" were excluded from the provisions allowing for remote proceedings.        
In re: Operation Directives, supra note 3 at C(2) (emphasis added).  After listing that 
exception and other exceptions, this Court directed:  
Courts may set in-person hearings in the above listed proceedings but it 
does not mandate a judge set a hearing in any individual case.  The 
presiding judge of each circuit court and the chief judges of each appellate 
court are authorized to determine the manner in which the listed in-person 
exceptions are to be conducted.  Such proceedings shall be limited to the 
attorneys, parties, witnesses, security officers, and other individuals 
necessary to the proceedings as determined by the judge presiding over 
the proceedings.  The judge presiding over such proceedings has the 
discretion to excuse jurors or other individuals who cannot or should not 
appear as a result of risks associated with COVID-19. 
 
Id. (emphasis added).   
This Court specifically cautioned about the requirement for in-person proceedings 
in delinquency adjudications.  Id.  This Court gave circuit court presiding judges the 
discretion to determine the manner of in-person proceedings.  Id.  But this Court 
 
5 
specifically provided that parties, attorneys, and witnesses were among the people who 
are physically present at in-person proceedings.  See id.  Nothing in this Court's directives 
encouraging remote proceedings for many types of hearings supports the circuit court's 
determination that remote proceedings were authorized in this case irrespective of the 
juvenile's statutory and constitutional rights.  In other words, nothing in this Court's 
directives permitted the circuit court to deny J.A.T.'s request to appear in-person and 
proceed over his objection at the adjudication hearing.  
The juvenile officer presented testimony of Stiner and the police detective, Kaitlyn 
Elias, who investigated the incident.  Stiner testified he was contacted on Snapchat by an 
individual who asked to purchase marijuana from him.  Stiner and the individual agreed 
on a plan for the marijuana purchase.  Upon arriving at the designated meeting spot, two 
individuals—both with money visible—approached Stiner in his car.  Stiner took the 
money, and the two individuals got into Stiner's car.  One individual sat in the front 
passenger seat and one individual sat in the back seat.  The back seat passenger was 
armed with a firearm.  The individuals asked Stiner to divide the marijuana, and Stiner 
testified he felt rushed.  A struggle occurred that involved the front seat passenger 
reaching for something within the car.  Stiner testified he was then shot six times by the 
back seat passenger and blacked out.  When Stiner woke up, he first called a friend, and 
then called the police.  Stiner was taken to the hospital, where he required surgery.  Stiner 
testified he was armed with a firearm on his left side that night; however, he never pulled 
out the weapon.  Stiner also testified the two individuals did not take the marijuana, 
firearm, or other belongings in the car.   
 
6 
 
Detective Elias testified she responded to the scene to investigate the shooting and 
found five .45-caliber shell casings, two .40-caliber shell casings, a bullet fragment, a 
firearm, a .45-caliber magazine, and 18 grams of marijuana.  The firearm was reported as 
stolen, and Detective Elias testified Stiner possessed the firearm on the night of the 
shooting.  Detective Elias testified there was no evidence the shooting occurred outside 
the vehicle.  Detective Elias spoke to Stiner the day after the shooting and testified Stiner 
described two suspects, 14 to 16 years old, and 5'5" to 5'6" in height.  Stiner also 
provided the Snapchat account name of the person he arranged to meet with that night.   
 
Detective Elias applied for a search warrant from Snapchat for the 
communications between Stiner and the individual who contacted him to purchase 
marijuana.  Detective Elias, with assistance of the school district, searched for names in 
connection with the Snapchat user name.  This led Detective Elias to J.A.T. and J.A.T.'s 
address, which was in close proximity to the shooting location.  Detective Elias compiled 
a photographic lineup; Stiner identified J.A.T. as the front seat passenger, and another 
individual as the back seat passenger.  In connection to the Snapchat warrant, Detective 
Elias described a video that showed J.A.T. holding a firearm, which was time-stamped 
"just prior" to Stiner's call to police on the night of the incident.  The video showed J.A.T. 
wave the barrel of the firearm in front of the camera, where "distinct X mark 
ammunition" can be seen loaded in the chamber of the firearm.  Detective Elias testified 
that DNA was recovered from multiple locations in Stiner's vehicle, including the 
passenger door handle, the firearm magazine, and the interior of the rear passenger door, 
 
7 
and none of that DNA matched J.A.T.  Detective Elias also testified a search warrant was 
executed on J.A.T.'s home, and no firearms were found in the home.   
 
In addition to the testimony of the two witnesses, the juvenile officer admitted into 
evidence a .45-caliber bullet, multiple crime scene photos depicting Stiner's vehicle, the 
search warrant for information from Snapchat, multiple booking photographs used for the 
lineup, and the photographic lineup presented to Stiner.   
 
J.A.T. filed a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the juvenile officer's 
evidence, which the circuit court denied.  J.A.T.'s attorney then requested to go to the 
detention facility to speak to J.A.T., ultimately deciding to present no additional 
evidence.  J.A.T. filed another motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all 
evidence, which the circuit court also denied.  The juvenile officer presented closing 
argument in person, and J.A.T. presented closing argument from the detention facility via 
two-way video.   
 
The circuit court sustained the allegations of first-degree assault and armed 
criminal action relating to the assault, beyond a reasonable doubt.  The circuit court did 
not sustain the allegations of first-degree attempted robbery and armed criminal action 
relating to the attempted robbery.  After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court ordered 
J.A.T. be committed to the custody of the Division of Youth Services.  J.A.T. appealed; 
the court of appeals issued an opinion but then transferred the case to this Court pursuant 
to Rule 83.02.  This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to article V, § 10 of the Missouri 
Constitution.   
 
 
8 
Standard of Review  
"Juvenile proceedings are reviewed in the same manner as other court-tried cases."  
D.C.M. v. Pemiscot Cnty Juv. Off., 578 S.W.3d 776, 786 (Mo. banc 2019) (internal 
quotations omitted).  "This Court will affirm a judgment in a juvenile proceeding unless it 
is not supported by evidence, is against the weight of evidence, or erroneously declares or 
applies the law."  Id.  Whether a person's constitutional rights were violated is a question 
of law that this Court reviews de novo.  State v. Justus, 205 S.W.3d 872, 878 (Mo. banc 
2006).  Properly preserved constitutional violations are presumed prejudicial.  Id. at 881.  
"[T]he constitutional protections applicable in criminal proceedings are also applicable in 
juvenile delinquency proceedings due to the possibility of a deprivation of liberty 
equivalent to criminal incarceration."  In re N.D.C., 229 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Mo. banc 
2007).   
Analysis  
 
J.A.T. argues requiring him to attend the adjudication hearing via two-way live 
video violated his rights to due process and confrontation under the United States 
Constitution, U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV; the Missouri Constitution, Mo. Const. art. I, 
§§ 10, 18(a); and Supreme Court of Missouri Rule 128.  J.A.T. properly preserved this 
issue for appeal by objecting to virtual adjudication before and during the adjudication 
hearing. 
 
The Fourteenth Amendment's due process protection applies to juvenile 
proceedings.  In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 30-31 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Allen 
v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 372-73 (1986).  The Fourteenth Amendment states "[n]o State 
 
9 
shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]"  
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.  Due process requires application during a juvenile 
adjudication hearing of "the essentials of due process and fair treatment."  Gault, 387 
U.S. at 30.  The United States Supreme Court has held certain rights enumerated within 
the Bill of Rights apply to juvenile proceedings, including notice of charges, right to 
counsel, right of confrontation and cross-examination, and privilege against                
self-incrimination.  Id. at 33, 41, 55, 56. 
 
"One of the most basic of the rights guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause is the 
accused's right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of his trial."  Illinois v. Allen, 
397 U.S. 337, 338 (1970).  "[A] person cannot incur the loss of liberty for an offense 
without notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend."  State v. Miller, 372 S.W.3d 455, 
467 (Mo. banc 2012) (alteration in original).  "The right to be present at critical stages of 
trial is guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the Missouri Constitution, and 
Missouri statutory law."  State v. Johns, 34 S.W.3d 93, 116 (Mo. banc 2000).4   
 
"[T]he juvenile and the juvenile's parents, guardian or custodian shall have the 
right to be present at all times during any hearing."  Rule 128.01a; "No hearing . . . may 
be commenced without the presence of the juvenile unless the juvenile's presence is 
waived by counsel; provided, a detention hearing . . . may be commenced without the 
presence of the juvenile if the juvenile's presence is waived by the juvenile's counsel or 
                                              
4 See also Mo. Const. art. I § 18(a) ("[I]n criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right 
to appear and defend, in person and by counsel[.]"); § 546.030, RSMo 2016 ("No person indicted 
for a felony can be tried unless he be personally present, during the trial[.]"); Rule 31.03(a) ("No 
trial shall be conducted . . . unless the defendant is present[.]"); Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(a)(2) ("[T]he 
defendant must be present at: every trial stage[.]"). 
 
10 
the court determines the juvenile's presence is not warranted."  Rule 128.01b.  The circuit 
court may continue with a hearing upon the "subsequent voluntary absence of the 
juvenile."  Rule 128.01c.  The circuit court may also "exclude any unruly or disruptive 
person from a hearing where exclusion is necessary to the orderly conduct of the 
hearing."  Rule 128.01g.  At a juvenile adjudication hearing, "[a]ll parties shall be 
afforded the opportunity to testify, present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and 
present arguments of law and fact and arguments concerning the weight, credibility and 
effect of the evidence."  Rule 128.02b.     
 
A defendant has a "due process right to be present at a proceeding whenever his 
presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to defend 
against the charge."  United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526 (1985) (internal 
quotations omitted).  "[T]he presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the 
extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent 
only."  Id. (alteration in original).  "The focus is whether, on the whole record, the 
defendant could have done or gained anything by attending."  State v. Middleton, 998 
S.W.2d 520, 526 (Mo. banc 1999); see also Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745-46 
(1987) (holding the defendant's due process rights were not violated by his exclusion 
from the competency hearing of two witnesses against him because "[n]o question 
regarding the substantive testimony that the two girls would have given during the trial 
was asked at that hearing."  But noting "a competency hearing in which a witness is 
asked to discuss upcoming substantive testimony might bear a substantial relationship to 
a defendant's opportunity better to defend himself at trial.").  "[A] defendant is 
 
11 
guaranteed the right to be present at any stage of the criminal proceeding that is critical to 
its outcome if his presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure."  Stincer, 
482 U.S. at 745.  
 
The right to be present, however, can be lost either involuntarily or voluntarily. 
 
[A] defendant can lose his right to be present at trial if, after he has been 
warned by the judge that he will be removed if he continues his disruptive 
behavior, he nevertheless insists on conducting himself in a manner so 
disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that his trial cannot be 
carried on with him in the courtroom. 
   
Allen, 397 U.S. at 343.  "Once lost, the right to be present can, of course, be reclaimed as 
soon as the defendant is willing to conduct himself consistently with the decorum and 
respect inherent in the concept of courts and judicial proceedings."  Id.  A defendant may 
also waive his right to be present at trial.  State v. Driskill, 459 S.W.3d 412, 426 (Mo. 
banc 2015).  "When a defendant choses [sic] to waive a constitutional right, the waiver 
must be voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made."  Id.  "In the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, the defendant's purposeful absence from the courtroom creates the 
presumption of a valid waiver."  Johns, 34 S.W.3d at 116.  "A defendant can waive his 
right to be present at all critical stages of his or her trial by voluntarily and willfully 
leaving the courtroom."  State v. Knese, 985 S.W.2d 759, 776 (Mo. banc 1999).  
 
In the case at bar, J.A.T. repeatedly asserted his right to be physically present at 
his adjudication hearing to defend himself.  By requiring J.A.T. to attend his own 
adjudication hearing via two-way video, the circuit court denied him the crucial right to 
be physically present at the stage of the proceedings critical to its outcome—the 
determination of guilt or innocence.  This exclusion, with no fault being attributed to 
 
12 
J.A.T., contributed to the fairness of these proceedings because the adjudication hearing 
was J.A.T.'s opportunity to defend against the accusations of the juvenile officer.  The 
circuit court's general reference to the policy of the detention facility to not transport 
juveniles to and from court "to limit the exposure to germs of that particular juvenile as 
well as juveniles in detention" during the COVID-19 pandemic does not in and of itself 
justify the denial of J.A.T.'s right to be present at this most critical stage of his 
proceeding.    
 
The purported necessity of prohibiting J.A.T. from being transported to the 
hearing from the detention facility for his own protection and for the protection of other 
juveniles at the detention facility is undercut by the fact that defense counsel was 
permitted to go to the facility and complete the hearing with J.A.T. after defense counsel 
had been present in the courtroom with the circuit judge, the circuit judge's staff, J.A.T.'s 
parents, the juvenile officer, a deputy juvenile officer, a victim services representative, 
and all the witnesses.  Presumably the circuit court found the safety measures in place in 
the courtroom to be sufficiently protective to permit several individuals to be present. 
 
Furthermore, nothing in this Court's Operational Directives granted permission to 
conduct J.A.T.'s adjudication hearing with J.A.T. appearing via two-way video from the 
detention facility.  This Court's COVID Operational Directives outlined phases of 
operation for Missouri courts to follow to gradually resume in-person appearances and 
proceedings.  In re: Operation Directives, supra note 3.  Each phase authorized resuming 
certain in-person proceedings and appearances, upon the order of the presiding judge or 
chief judge of the applicable circuit, based on findings of specific "Gateway Criteria."    
 
13 
Id. at A-B.  The "Gateway Criteria" outlined considerations "before resuming court 
activity or progressing to a new Operating Phase."  Id. at A.  The Sixteenth Circuit 
entered its order in response to this Court's order: "The Court will follow the Operational 
Directives and criteria set forth by the Missouri Supreme Court."  In Re: Updated Court 
Operations, supra note 3 at pg. 2.  
Throughout the pandemic, this Court's orders have excepted from in-person 
proceedings that could be suspended "[p]roceedings necessary to protect the 
constitutional rights of criminal defendants."  In re: Operation Directives, supra note 
3 at C(2) (emphasis added).  In all phases of operation, this Court's order contained a 
"Gateway Criteria" providing: "Encourage judges and court staff to continue utilizing all 
available technologies – including teleconferencing and video conferencing – whenever 
possible to limit in-person courtroom appearances to the extent not prohibited by 
constitutional or statutory provisions."  Id. at C(4), D(5), E(5), F(5) (emphasis added) 
(operating phase two and operating phase three contain slightly different language).  The 
Sixteenth Circuit's order similarly provided: "Whereas, the Missouri Supreme Court has 
continued to encourage judges to utilize all available technologies – including 
teleconferencing and video conferencing – to limit in person courtroom appearances 
to the extent not prohibited by the constitution or statutes as to the proceedings[.]"  
In Re: Updated Court Operations, supra note 3 at pg. 2 (emphasis added).   
Operating phase zero of this Court's order, the most stringent phase of operation, 
suspended all in-person proceedings, subject to exceptions, which included: 
"Proceedings pursuant to chapters 210 and 211 pertaining to juvenile 
 
14 
delinquency[.]"  In re: Operation Directives, supra note 3 at C(2) (emphasis added).   
The Sixteenth Circuit's order also specifically addressed juvenile proceedings:  
The Court Administrator/Deputy Court Administrator may resume 
programming operated by the Family Court Services, provided however, 
that the resumption of said programming can proceed in compliance with 
the Operational Directives, social distancing requirements, limitations on 
size of gatherings, other terms of this Administrative Order and guidelines 
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
 
In Re: Updated Court Operations, supra note 3 at pg. 4 (emphasis in original).   
In addition to the circuit court's violation of J.A.T.'s constitutional right to due 
process as discussed previously by requiring J.A.T.'s attendance via two-way video over 
objection, the circuit court also failed to heed the caution of this Court's order, which was 
drafted to ensure the constitutional and statutory rights of juveniles were protected during 
the COVID-19 pandemic.   
 Conclusion 
 
Neither the United States Constitution nor the Missouri Constitution are entitled to 
take "sick days."  This Court recognizes the devastating toll the COVID-19 pandemic has 
taken in this country and our state, and the substantial impact the pandemic has had on all 
aspects of society.  Nevertheless, generalized concerns about the virus may not override 
an individual's constitutional right of due process to be physically present for his juvenile 
adjudication hearing at which his guilt or innocence will be determined.5  
                                              
5 Because this case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion, it is 
not necessary to address J.A.T.'s claims that his rights to confrontation pursuant to the United 
States and Missouri Constitutions were also violated by being prohibited from being physically 
present at his adjudication hearing.  
 
15 
The circuit court erroneously declared and applied the law in requiring J.A.T.'s 
attendance and participation via two-way video in violation of J.A.T.'s due process right 
to be physically present at his adjudication hearing.  The court's judgment is vacated, and 
the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Zel M. Fischer, Judge 
 
 
Wilson, C.J., Russell, Breckenridge,  
Ransom and Draper, JJ., concur;  
Powell, J., concurs in separate opinion filed;  
Ransom and Draper, JJ., concur in opinion  
of Powell, J. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
 
IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.T., 
 
  ) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  ) 
 
 
 
Appellant, 
 
  ) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  ) 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
  ) 
No.  SC99251 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  ) 
JACKSON COUNTY JUVENILE 
  ) 
OFFICE, 
 
 
 
 
  ) 
 
 
 
Respondent.  
  ) 
 
CONCURRING OPINION 
I concur with the principal opinion that the circuit court violated J.A.T.’s due 
process rights by restricting J.A.T.’ s physical attendance and participation at J.A.T.’s 
juvenile adjudication hearing.  I write separately to caution that this holding should not be 
construed too broadly.   
As the principal opinion notes “the presence of a defendant is a condition of due 
process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, 
and to that extent only.”  United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526 (1985) (emphasis 
added) (alteration omitted).  Circumstances could arise, then, in which a court may conduct 
a fair and just hearing in the defendant’s absence.  See Snyder v. Com. Of Mass., 291 U.S. 
97 (1934), overruled on other grounds by Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S.1 (1964).  In fact, this 
2 
 
Court has previously held a defendant’s brief absence during part of his criminal trial did 
not result in a due process violation.  See State v. Grate, 68 Mo. 22, 26-27 (Mo. 1878) 
(finding no due process violation when a defendant was momentarily out of court during 
closing arguments because no facts indicated prejudice as a result of the absence), 
overruled on other grounds by Roe v. Bank of Versailles, 67 S.W.303, 306 (Mo 1902). 
To be sure, the circumstances justifying limiting, restricting, or denying a 
defendant’s physical access to his or her trial would be highly unusual and extraordinary.  
But as long as the trial or proceeding is conducted in a manner that ensures a fair and just 
hearing for the defendant, the exclusion would not per se violate due process.  Here, the 
circumstances surrounding the adjudication proceeding did not justify excluding J.A.T. 
from the hearing as the circuit court could have taken other measures to ensure J.A.T.’s 
safe presence in the courtroom.  Because J.A.T. could not easily confer with counsel and 
be present in the courtroom to observe the proceedings and witnesses that testified, J.A.T. 
was prejudiced and did not receive a fair and just hearing as the principal opinion correctly 
concludes.  Therefore, I concur. 
 
 
___________________ 
W. Brent Powell, Judge 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
 
en banc 
 
May 4, 2020 
Effective May 16, 2020 
 
OPERATIONAL DIRECTIVES 
As state and local governments begin lifting or relaxing stay-at-home orders and 
restrictions on social distancing and group gatherings, the Supreme Court of Missouri 
provides these Operational Directives to the courts of this state to follow before resuming 
court activities that have previously been suspended by this Court’s prior orders.  The 
Court recognizes that conditions vary across the state; therefore, appropriate measures for 
resuming activities must vary as well.  Appropriate precautions and safeguards in large, 
metropolitan areas may not be necessary or appropriate in less-populated communities.  
Moreover, differences in docket sizes, courtroom and courthouse layouts, and the number 
of judicial employees make it difficult to establish functional and effective statewide 
orders.  Accordingly, the purpose of these Operational Directives is to facilitate local 
solutions appropriate to local conditions. 
Nevertheless, Missouri courts must maintain a certain degree of uniformity in our 
response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Lawyers, litigants, victims, judicial employees, 
witnesses, jurors, and the public need to know what to expect when they engage with the 
Missouri judicial system regardless of where that engagement occurs.  Accordingly, the 
purpose of these Operational Directives also is to establish some uniformity in approach 
among Missouri courts to the challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic even 
though the solutions to these challenges may vary from time to time and place to place. 
As courts plan and consider gradually resuming activities previously suspended as 
conditions permit, the presiding judge or chief judge of the applicable circuit or court are 
directed to adhere to the following Operational Directives.  The citizens of the state and 
employees who enter Missouri courthouses and court facilities must feel confident for 
their own safety and understand that the health and welfare of every litigant, juror, 
witness, victim, judicial employee, attorney, and other individual involved in judicial 
proceedings across the state is paramount in the decisions that are made under these 
Operational Directives. 
2 
As set forth below, Missouri courts have been operating at what is referred to 
herein as “Operating Phase Zero” since this Court’s March 16, 2020, order suspending 
most in-person court proceedings.  All courts will continue to operate under those 
conditions until the presiding judge or chief judge of the applicable circuit or court 
determines – in light of the Gateway Criteria described below – that improvements in 
local conditions warrant moving to a higher Operating Phase or that deterioration in those 
conditions necessitates moving to a lower Operating Phase.  Each Operating Phase 
reflects differing approaches to in-person proceedings, personnel and staffing, and 
courthouse operations.  How those approaches will vary depends on local conditions, the 
needs and rights of the litigants and victims, the physical layouts of court facilities, and 
the abilities of the judicial and non-judicial personnel. No court can transition beyond the 
conditions set forth in Operating Phase Three until the Court’s order dated May 4, 2020, 
is amended or rescinded.  
These Operational Directives are designed to assist courts in ensuring public 
safety when making decisions at the local level.  Accordingly, presiding judges and 
chief judges should monitor local circumstances and conditions on a regular basis.  
Any movement to the next higher Operating Phase under these Directives can be 
made only after a court has been in the prior Operating Phase for a period of at 
least 14 calendar days. A court may revert back immediately to a prior Operating 
Phase when local conditions and circumstances require it.  Courts must notify the 
public of any transition to a new Operating Phase in its COVID-19 Notice and send 
any order or notice to this Court to be included on the Missouri Courts’ website. 
Prior to changing Operating Phases, the presiding judge or chief judge shall also 
submit to the Clerk of this Court a notice in the form attached as exhibit A.  
The Court is closely monitoring policy changes recommended by state and local 
government agencies and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and will 
update these Operational Directives as necessary. 
Directives 
A. Gateway Criteria
Consider each of the criteria below before resuming court activity or progressing to a 
new Operating Phase: 
1. No confirmed COVID-19 cases in the court facility within a 14-day period.
2. Rescission or lack of stay-at-home orders or the relaxing of group gathering
restrictions applicable to the community.
3. Improving COVID-19 health conditions over a 14-day period in the community,
including conditions such as the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases and
related deaths in relation to a community’s population density, size of particularly
vulnerable populations, and availability of medical facilities including emergency
and intensive care capacity.
3 
 
4. Consultation with local health officials or departments concerning changes to 
levels of court and courthouse activities. 
5. Consultation with local judiciary partners such as children’s division personnel, 
juvenile officers, members of the local bar, prosecutors and public defenders, law 
enforcement and probation and parole. 
If these Criteria suggest local conditions are improving sufficiently, a presiding judge 
or chief judge may consider moving to a higher Operating Phase and gradually 
resuming and adapting previously suspended court activities. 
If these Gateway Criteria suggest local conditions are worsening or that there is a 
resurgence of COVID-19 cases in the community, a presiding judge or chief judge 
should move to a lower Operating Phase including, when necessary and appropriate, 
returning to Operating Phase Zero. 
B. Operating Phase Approach 
1. Based upon the Criteria above, a presiding judge or chief judge may order a 
change of Operating Phase for each locality either up or down.   
2. Any order or decision moving and adapting courthouse operations from one 
Operating Phase to another must implement appropriate policies protecting 
litigants, witnesses, victims, judicial employees, attorneys, and other individuals 
involved in judicial proceedings through: 
a. Social distancing and/or occupancy rate restrictions; 
b. A COVID-19 Notice prohibiting access to the premises for individuals who 
have been exposed to or are exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19, listing 
necessary contact information for individuals not authorized to enter the 
premises, and advising those entering a court facility of the social distancing, 
occupancy rate and other precautionary restrictions taken to protect the health, 
safety and welfare of occupants; 
c. The use of masks or face coverings by judicial employees or members of the 
public; 
d. Heightened sanitation and disinfection of common and high-traffic areas, 
including consideration of acquiring additional hand sanitizers and wipes, hand 
sanitizing stations, and cleaning solutions for court facilities; 
e. Coordination with supervisors to ensure employees feeling ill stay at home; 
f. Procedures liberally permitting judicial employees to work from home when 
appropriate; and 
g. Preparation for the potential resurgence of COVID-19 cases following the 
resumption of court activities. 
4 
 
C. Operating Phase Zero 
1. Consult with local judiciary partners and rely on local health officials or 
departments and CDC guidance to adapt court operating decisions to local health 
conditions.  
2. Suspend all in-person court proceedings consistent with the Court’s April 17, 
2020, Order. 
The suspension of in-person proceedings is subject to the following exceptions: 
• 
Proceedings necessary to protect the constitutional rights of criminal 
defendants, including the right to a speedy trial, and the rights afforded 
under section 544.676.3; 
• 
Proceedings pursuant to chapters 210 and 211 pertaining to juvenile 
delinquency and abuse, neglect, and termination of parental rights; 
• 
Proceedings pursuant to chapter 453 pertaining to adoption; 
• 
Proceedings in which civil or criminal jury trials are already in progress as 
of March 16, 2020; 
• 
Proceedings pursuant to chapter 455 pertaining to orders of protection; 
• 
Proceedings related to emergency child custody orders; 
• 
Proceedings related to petitions for temporary restraining orders or other 
forms of temporary injunctive relief; 
• 
Proceedings related to emergency mental health orders; 
• 
Proceedings pursuant to Chapter 475 for emergency guardianship or 
conservatorship; 
• 
Proceedings directly related to the COVID-19 public health emergency; 
• 
Oral arguments regarding time-sensitive matters; and 
• 
Other exceptions approved by the Chief Justice of this Court. 
 
Courts may set in-person hearings in the above listed proceedings but it does not 
mandate a judge set a hearing in any individual case. The presiding judge of each 
circuit court and the chief judges of each appellate court are authorized to 
determine the manner in which the listed in-person exceptions are to be conducted.  
Such proceedings shall be limited to the attorneys, parties, witnesses, security 
officers, and other individuals necessary to the proceedings as determined by the 
judge presiding over the proceedings.  The judge presiding over such proceedings 
has the discretion to excuse jurors or other individuals who cannot or should not 
appear as a result of risks associated with COVID-19. 
 
3. All proceedings that do not require in-person appearances of parties or counsel are 
not suspended and may continue in the manner and at the discretion of the judge in 
the matter as circumstances allow.  
5 
 
4. Encourage judges and court staff to continue utilizing all available technologies – 
including teleconferencing and video conferencing – whenever possible to limit 
in-person courtroom appearances to the extent not prohibited by constitutional or 
statutory provisions. 
5. Implement appropriate levels of screening where possible at court facility 
entrances to mitigate against individuals experiencing symptoms related to 
COVID-19 from entering court facilities.  Such screening may include 
temperature checks and screening questions. 
6. Suspend any non-essential travel by judicial employees for work-related functions.   
Continually reevaluate the Gateway Criteria for indications that a courthouse is ready 
to move to a different Operating Phase. 
D. Operating Phase One 
1. Continue to consult with local judiciary partners and rely on local health officials 
or departments and CDC guidance to adapt court operating decisions consistent to 
local health conditions. 
2. Reexamine and update local court orders and COVID-19 Notices as appropriate. 
3. Consider resuming only the most critical in-person proceedings and restrict grand 
and petit jury proceedings to only the most extraordinary, pressing, and urgent 
cases. (Operational Directives on conducting jury proceedings will be forthcoming 
from this Court as pandemic and health conditions improve.)     
4. Large venues and common areas such as break rooms should be closed.  Keep 
occupancy rates in courtrooms, jury assembly rooms, and other areas in the court 
facility to an occupancy rate of 10 or less whenever possible and operate under 
strict social distancing protocols.  Consider requiring the use of masks or face 
coverings.  Require tape or other visible means be used to demark six-foot 
distances where practical.  Allow vulnerable1 litigants, witnesses, victims, 
attorneys, and other individuals involved in court proceedings to participate in the 
proceedings remotely or continue or postpone their required presence at the court 
facility.   
5. Encourage judges and court staff to continue utilizing all available technologies – 
including teleconferencing and video conferencing – whenever possible to limit 
in-person courtroom appearances to the extent not prohibited by constitutional or 
statutory provisions. 
                                                 
1 Vulnerable individuals are defined by the CDC as individuals 65 years or older or 
individuals with underlying medical conditions, particularly if not well controlled, 
including those who suffer from chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma, serious 
heart conditions, immune disorders, obesity, diabetes, or chronic kidney or liver disease. 
6 
 
6. Suspend any non-essential travel by judicial employees for work-related functions. 
7. Implement appropriate levels of screening where possible at court facility 
entrances to mitigate against individuals experiencing symptoms related to 
COVID-19 from entering court facilities.  Such screening may include 
temperature checks and screening questions.   
8. Increase cleaning and disinfection of common areas and consider providing hand 
sanitizers and wipes. 
9. Vulnerable judicial employees should work with supervisors to stay at home.  
Employees who live with or provide care for vulnerable individuals should do the 
same to the greatest extent possible to reduce chances that they could carry the 
virus to those vulnerable individuals. 
10. Judicial employees should observe at least a six-foot minimum physical distance 
from others in all offices, meetings, and court proceedings.  Require tape or other 
visible means be used to demark six-foot distances where practical. Additional 
precautions such as requiring masks or face coverings should be considered. 
11. Allow judicial employees to work in shifts whenever possible and feasible to keep 
staffing levels to a bare minimum to support court activity. 
12. Allow judicial employees to stay home where possible if the employee: 
a) Is subject to a quarantine or isolation order or is living with or caring for such 
an individual; 
b) Has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine or is living with 
or caring for an individual who has been advised to self-quarantine; 
c) Is considered high risk based on local or state health officials or departments 
criteria for contracting COVID-19, or is living with or caring for such an 
individual; 
d) Is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking medical diagnosis, or is 
living with or caring for such an individual; or 
e) Is caring for a child whose school or place of care has been closed or whose 
childcare provider is unavailable due to COVID-19 precautions. 
A court cannot proceed to Operating Phase Two until it has completed at least 14 
days in Operating Phase One.  Before proceeding to Operating Phase Two, a court 
must reevaluate the Gateway Criteria to ensure readiness to progress to the next 
Operating Phase. 
 
 
7 
 
E. Operating Phase Two 
1. Continue to consult with local judiciary partners and rely on local health officials 
or departments and CDC guidance to adapt court operating decisions to local 
health conditions. 
2. Reexamine and update local court orders and COVID-19 Notices as appropriate. 
3. Increased in-person court proceedings, including the most extraordinary, pressing, 
and urgent grand and petit jury proceedings, can begin where they can safely be 
conducted in compliance with social distancing protocols and occupancy rate 
limitations applicable to the local community.  (Operational Directives on 
conducting jury proceedings will be forthcoming from this Court as pandemic and 
health conditions improve.) 
4. Keep occupancy rates in large venues and common areas such as courtrooms, jury 
assembly rooms, jury deliberating rooms, break rooms, and other areas in court 
facilities to an occupancy rate of 25 or less whenever possible and operate under 
social distancing protocols.  Consider requiring the use of masks or face coverings. 
Require tape or other visible means be used to demark six-foot distances where 
practical.  Continue to allow vulnerable litigants, witnesses, victims, attorneys, and 
other individuals involved in court proceedings to participate in the proceedings 
remotely or postpone their required presence at the court facility. 
5. Continue to encourage judges and court staff to utilize all available technologies – 
including teleconferencing and video conferencing – whenever possible to limit 
in-person courtroom appearances to the extent practicable and not prohibited by 
constitutional or statutory provisions. 
6. Continue to suspend any non-essential travel by judicial employees for work-
related functions.   
7. Continue to implement appropriate levels of screening at court facility entrances to 
mitigate against individuals experiencing symptoms related to COVID-19 from 
entering court facilities.  Such screening may include temperature checks and 
screening questions.  
8. Continue increased cleaning and disinfection of common areas and consider 
providing hand sanitizers and wipes. 
9. Continue to allow vulnerable judicial employees to work with supervisors to 
establish reasonable accommodations for those vulnerabilities. 
10. Judicial employees, when in the court facility, should continue to maximize 
physical distance from others.  Six foot distancing should continue to be observed 
in all offices, meetings, and court proceedings.  Require tape or other visible 
means be used to demark six-foot distances where practical.  Additional 
precautions such as requiring masks or face coverings should be considered.  
8 
 
11. Continue to allow judicial employees to work in shifts whenever possible and 
feasible to keep staffing levels to a bare minimum to support increased court 
activity. 
12. Allow judicial employees to stay home if the employee: 
a) Is subject to a quarantine or isolation order or is living with or caring for such 
an individual; 
b) Has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine or is living with 
or caring for an individual who has been advised to self-quarantine; 
c) Is considered high risk based on local or state health official or department 
criteria for contracting COVID-19, or is living with or caring for such an 
individual; or 
d) Is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking medical diagnosis, or is 
living with or caring for such an individual. 
A court cannot proceed to Operating Phase Three until it has completed at least 14 
days in Operating Phase Two.  Before proceeding to Operating Phase Three, a court 
must reevaluate the Gateway Criteria to ensure readiness to progress to the next 
Operating Phase. 
F. Operating Phase Three 
1. Continue to consult with local judiciary partners and rely on local health officials 
or departments and CDC guidance to adapt court operating decisions to local 
health conditions. 
2. Reexamine and update local court orders and COVID-19 Notices as appropriate. 
3. Resume in-person court proceedings, including grand and petit jury proceedings, 
that can be conducted in compliance with social distancing protocols and 
occupancy rate limitations applicable to the local community. (Operational 
Directives on conducting jury proceedings will be forthcoming from this Court as 
pandemic and health conditions improve.) 
4. Large venues and common areas such as courtrooms, jury assembly rooms, jury 
deliberating rooms, break rooms, and other areas in the court facility can operate 
under social distancing protocols.  Consider requiring the use of masks or face 
coverings. Consider continuing to allow vulnerable litigants, witnesses, victims, 
attorneys, and other individuals involved in court proceedings to participate in the 
proceedings remotely or continue or postpone their required presence at the court 
facility.  
 
9 
 
5. Continue to encourage judges and court staff to utilize all available technologies – 
including teleconferencing and video conferencing – whenever possible to limit 
in-person courtroom appearances to the extent not prohibited by constitutional or 
statutory provisions.   
6. Consider terminating enhanced screening procedures at court facility entrances. 
7. Continue cleaning and disinfection of common areas and consider providing hand 
sanitizers and wipes. 
8. Allow vulnerable judicial employees to return to work but encourage supervisors 
to make reasonable accommodations to address those vulnerabilities. 
9. Judicial employees should continue to adhere to social distancing guidelines in 
court facilities. Additional precautions such as requiring masks or face coverings 
should be considered. 
10. Consider resuming normal staffing schedules for judicial employees. 
11. Consider discontinuing the suspension of non-essential travel by judicial 
employees for work-related functions.  
12. Allow judicial employees to stay home if the employee: 
a) Is subject to a quarantine or isolation order or is living with or caring for such 
an individual; 
b) Has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine or is living with 
or caring for an individual who has been advised to self-quarantine; 
c) Is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking medical diagnosis, or is 
living with or caring for such an individual. 
 
EXHIBIT A 
 
 
Notice to the Supreme Court of Missouri of Higher/Lower Operating Phase 
 
 
 
I, _______________________, (presiding judge or chief judge) of 
___________________________ notify the Supreme Court of Missouri that the following will 
move to Operating Phase _______on the ___ day of ___________, 2020. 
 
Mark all that apply:  
__ Entire Judicial Circuit/Appellate District; or   
__ County/Counties of ____________________________________________ within the Circuit; 
and/or 
__ Municipal Division(s) of ________________________________________within the Circuit. 
 
 
 
Dated:  _________________  
 
__________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     (Presiding Judge or Chief Judge) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI 
16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, STATE OF MISSOURI 
In Re:  Updated Court Operations upon Re-Opening of Courthouses 
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2020-___ 
WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have declared that 
the spread of COVID-19 has become a worldwide pandemic; and 
WHEREAS, the State of Missouri, Jackson County and various Mayors of cities in 
Jackson County have previously entered stay at home Orders and other emergency 
Orders requiring residents to remain at home except for activities essential to health and 
safety, and requiring businesses to cease operations unless they are considered essential 
businesses; and 
WHEREAS, the continuing operation of the 16th Judicial Circuit Court (“Court”) 
has been deemed to be an essential governmental service and therefore, the Court has 
remained open and operational during the term of all Stay-At-Home Orders, performing 
core judicial functions, often through remote technologies including video and telephone 
hearings and conferences; and 
WHEREAS, the previously entered stay at home Orders and emergency Orders 
have been lifted or terminated and/or have been replaced with Orders allowing for the 
phased and gradual re-opening of society, businesses, communities and the courthouses 
in which the Court operates, while also including restrictions to minimize the potential 
spread of COVID-19; and 
WHEREAS, the Missouri Supreme Court has issued several Orders regarding 
court operations, the most recent of which includes Operational Directives related not 
only to considering strategies to prevent the spread of COVID-19, but also directives 
which provide for a phased approach toward easing restrictions related to court 
operations, with a clear intent to move toward more complete court operations; and  
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the Court commencing a slow, deliberate plan moving 
toward more complete court operations pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Orders, the 
Court’s operations will continue to be significantly modified; and 
WHEREAS, circumstances regarding COVID-19 have changed dramatically since 
the Court’s issuance of prior Administrative Orders related to court operations; and 
1 
WHEREAS, it has been and continues to be imperative that the Court take steps 
to protect the health and safety of employees of the Court, all judicial officers, all 
attorneys, all litigants, all victims, all witnesses, any other individuals or entities who 
have cases and hearings before the Court and all members of the general public who 
interact with or have business with the Court; and 
WHEREAS, the Missouri Supreme Court has continued to authorize the 
Presiding Judge of each Circuit to facilitate local solutions regarding the continuation 
and/or restoration of court operations, while also considering and maintaining a 
certain degree of uniformity; and 
WHEREAS, the Missouri Supreme Court has continued to encourage judges to 
utilize all available technologies – including teleconferencing and video conferencing – 
to limit in person courtroom appearances to the extent not prohibited by the constitution 
or statutes as to the proceedings; and 
WHEREAS, the Missouri Supreme Court’s Operational Directives describe 
criteria to be evaluated and considered regarding the continued operation of the Court 
as well as the progression or regression to different Phases set forth in the Operating 
Directives; and 
WHEREAS, the 16th Judicial Circuit Court operates in numerous buildings and 
courthouses, including the Kansas City Courthouse, the Eastern Jackson County 
Courthouse, the Family Court Divisions at the Family Justice Center, the Albert Riederer 
Community Justice Complex and the Community Justice Building (herein collectively 
referred to as the “Court Buildings”); and 
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 478.240.2 R.S.Mo. and Section 15 of the Missouri 
Constitution, the Presiding Judge has general administrative authority over all judicial 
personnel and court officials in the Circuit as well as administrative authority over 
dockets of the Court and the administrative and discretionary authority regarding the 
manner in which any hearings are conducted in the Court. 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, effective immediately and continuing until rescinded, 
amended, modified or extended in a subsequent Administrative Order, as follows: 
1. 
The Court will follow the Operational Directives and criteria set forth by 
the Missouri Supreme Court as it works toward restoration of court operations, including 
the utilization of local solutions appropriate to local conditions.   
2. 
The Court will submit to the Missouri Supreme Court in a regular and 
timely manner, “Exhibit A, Notice to the Supreme Court of Missouri of Higher/Lower 
Operating Phase” as set forth in and referenced in the Supreme Court’s Order dated May 
2 
4, 2020, effective May 16, 2020. The Court will follow the applicable guidelines and 
directives for the Phase specified in its submitted Exhibit A, supplemented by the specific 
terms of this Administrative Order and any amendments hereto. To the extent this 
Administrative Order provides local solutions or additional terms unique to the local 
conditions presented to the Court, those solutions and terms shall continue to apply until 
rescinded or modified by a subsequent Administrative Order.     
3. 
The Court shall continue to utilize all available technologies, including 
teleconferencing and video conferencing, to the greatest possible extent for all 
proceedings, hearings and/or conferences (collectively referred hereinafter as 
“proceedings”) so as to not require the physical presence of persons in Court Buildings. 
The Court will limit in person proceedings as much as possible.  
4. 
Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 above, in person proceedings may 
resume but only in very limited and extreme circumstances for critical proceedings in 
extraordinary and urgent situations, based on a determination that alternative methods 
for conducting said proceedings cannot occur, including a determination by the Judicial 
Officer presiding over any such proceedings that it is not possible for such proceedings 
to be conducted by telephone, teleconference, polycom, videoconferencing, or any other 
method that does not require the physical presence of persons in Court Buildings.  In 
person hearings should be conducted only as a last resort when all other alternative methods 
to proceed have failed. 
5. 
The Court Administrator has previously established procedures for pro se 
litigants to deliver and/or file pleadings and other documents with the Court via fax 
filing, email filing, and by creating drop boxes at designated entries 
to Court Buildings. 
Those procedures are posted on Court Building doors, posted on the Court’s website at 
www.16thcircuit.org, and posted on the Court’s Facebook page.  Those procedures shall 
remain in place as alternatives to pro se litigants filing said documents personally at the 
courthouses. 
6. 
In all criminal cases where the defendant is in detention at the Jackson 
County Detention Center or otherwise in custody at any other detention center or at any 
other prison, said defendant shall not be personally transported to or brought into Court 
Buildings for any hearing or conference.  All hearings and conferences regarding any 
such defendant shall be conducted via teleconference or videoconference, including 
initial appearance and arraignment hearings. 
7. 
Each Judicial Officer and his/her division staff shall be responsible for 
notifying all parties and counsel if his/her cases/dockets are being conducted by 
teleconference, videoconference or the manner in which hearings will be held. Each 
Judicial Officer and his/her division staff shall also be responsible for re-scheduling new 
3 
hearing dates and notifying all parties and counsel of new hearing dates in the event cases 
cannot be heard as scheduled. 
8. 
The Court may resume scheduling in person hearings on full orders of 
protection, subject to social distancing requirements, limitations on the size of gatherings 
as set forth in the applicable Operational Directives and other limitations set forth in this 
Administrative Order. The in person hearings on full orders of protection that have 
previously been continued by prior Administrative Orders will be re-scheduled by the 
Court and if possible, given priority regarding hearing dates.  Given the previous 
suspension of said hearings, all Ex Parte Orders of Protection currently in existence will 
be extended by operation of this Administrative Order until the full order of protection 
hearing can be scheduled and actually occurs.  In addition, because of the backlog of 
Order of Protection cases, all Ex Parte Orders of Protection entered subsequent to this 
Administrative Order which are not able to be heard within 14 days of the entry of the 
Ex Parte Order, will be extended by operation of this Administrative Order until a full 
order of protection hearing can be scheduled and actually occurs.  Nothing in this 
Administrative Order bars or prevents holding hearings on full orders of protection via 
teleconference or videoconference. Therefore, if all parties in a particular case are 
available to allow said hearing to be conducted via teleconference or videoconference, 
said hearing shall proceed in that manner. 
9. 
When a defendant in a pending criminal case bonds out of the Jackson 
County Detention Center, he/she is given a date for his/her initial appearance. Any such 
date provided to a defendant shall be continued and the initial appearance will be held 
90 days after the date provided at the time the defendant bonds out of the detention 
center. 
10. 
While this Administrative Order remains in effect, judges presiding over a 
civil or domestic case or matter may exercise their discretion to waive, for good cause 
shown, any filing deadlines or time limitations set through Missouri’s e-filing system or 
by court order, local rule, or Missouri Supreme Court Rules 41 through 81. This 
authorization does not apply to any deadline or time limitations set by statute or 
constitutional provision. 
11. 
The Court Administrator/Deputy Court Administrator may resume 
programming operated by the Family Court Services, provided however, that the 
resumption of said programming can proceed in compliance with the Operational 
Directives, social distancing requirements, limitations on sizes of gatherings, other terms 
of this Administrative Order and guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention. 
4 
12. 
All municipal courts in Jackson County, Missouri are subject to this 
Administrative Order and are encouraged to take appropriate action consistent with this 
Administrative Order and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. 
13. 
The provision of Circuit Court Local Rule 68.3.1 which requires that each 
party be represented by separate counsel, shall remain temporarily suspended. 
Therefore, assuming all other requirements of Local Rule 68 are complied with, proposed 
Judgments may be submitted by Joint signed Affidavit and entered by the Court when 
only one party is represented by counsel instead of the requirement that both parties be 
represented by counsel. All other terms of Local Rule 68 remain in effect. 
14. 
All nonessential court related travel for staff and judicial officers shall remain 
suspended. 
15. 
All Court staff and all members of the public who appear at any Court 
Building for hearings and/or to conduct any court-related business, shall comply with 
all screening requirements and/or other requirements to mitigate against the spread of 
COVID-19 which are imposed at all Court Buildings, including but not limited to 
temperature checks and medical screenings in order to enter any Court Building, wearing 
masks or other face coverings as a condition to enter any Court Building, wearing masks 
or other face coverings in all public areas in all Court Buildings and social distancing.   
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent the directives and declarations set 
forth in this Administrative Order differ with the Court’s prior Administrative Orders, 
this Administrative Order controls. 
THIS ORDER MAY BE AMENDED, RESCINDED, MODIFIED OR EXTENTED AS 
CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE.  
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
May 14, 2020 
__________________________________ 
Date
 
David
 
M.
 
Byrn,
 
Presiding
 
Judge
 
Certificate of Service 
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was emailed to the following on May 14, 
2020. 
16th Circuit Court Judiciary and Staff 
Frank White, County Executive 
5 
___________________________
David
yrn, Pr
iding
Troy Schulte, County Administrator 
Darryl Forte, Sheriff 
Theresa Galvin, Legislative Chair 
Members of the Legislature 
Mary A. Marquez, Court Administrator 
Jean Peters-Baker, Prosecutor 
Ruth Petsch, District Defender 
6