October 15, 2023

Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker’s statement on today’s appeals court ruling:

The Jackson County Prosecutor’s Office appreciates the deliberation and judgment of the Missouri Court of Appeals in upholding today the Trial Court’s guilty verdict. 

This case was heard by Jackson County Grand Jurors who returned an indictment. It was then considered by three separate judges from this Circuit, one issuing a warrant based on Probable Cause from the Grand Jurors, one denying the Defendant’s request to dismiss the case, and then the trial judge who heard the facts and convicted the Defendant in a public courtroom because the evidence proved that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Today’s decision validates the work of our citizens who served on those grand juries, our Circuit Court judges and our trial team. This is validation of the rule of law and it is a victory for the truth.

In courtrooms, politics and false narratives cannot prevail against evidence and facts. It is this part of the criminal justice system that makes our system better than any in the world. The evidence and facts in this case are now a part of the public record. The victim was killed inside his garage on an otherwise unremarkable winter day around noon in 2019. 

The appeals court today affirmed the defendant’s conviction and found:

• The victim “was not in possession of a gun at the time of the shooting.” (see p. 8 of appeals court ruling).
  • Likely had a cell phone in his hand, not a gun, when he was killed. Evidence was that he was making a call. A recorded message captured the final shots being fired. Tr 410. A witness described Lamb’s gun was on the steps in the basement. Lamb had no opportunity to retrieve the gun Tr. 277-78. First officer on scene did not see gun in Lamb’s hands or on floor near his truck. Tr. 248-50.

• The defendant made a false statement at the scene immediately after the shooting, claiming ‘when we arrived here the lady in pink was telling us that the Mustang had come over here prior with guns, and that’s what led to the pursuit…(but) neither (the partner) nor (defendant) received such information…” (See p. 9 of appeals court ruling.)
  • In addition, Tr. 131, 552-53. He had no information prior to arriving at the scene about any guns being involved in this incident. Tr. 572-73. Responding officers never saw anything indicating that guns were involved or never reported seeing guns. Tr. 119-20. Tr. 151. Defendant admitted that his statement that a witness told him about guns prior to the shooting was wrong. Tr. 596.
• The victim was not a threat to either the Defendant or his partner. His partner stated that, prior to the Defendant’s claim that he saw a gun, he did not feel threatened. Tr. 178-80. 
  • The Defendant’s partner never saw a gun and never supported that version of the encounter. He did see the victim’s left hand and there was no gun in it. Tr. 201, 172-75, 219; Exhibit 158.
• The victim was not being chased by police. Transcript 86, 114, 162, 572-73, 642-43; Tr. 641-43. Exhibit 80 (Composite Video). See page 35-36 of appeals court ruling.

The trial court record also showed:

• The victim was not being arrested for any crime. Tr. 530. No probable cause to believe anything other than misdemeanor traffic offenses that had ended. Tr. 578. Only probable cause was for traffic offenses. Tr. 160. No probable cause for any violent offense. Tr 640-41. 

• The victim was not a threat to either the Defendant or his partner. His partner stated that, prior to the Defendant’s claim that he saw a gun, he did not feel threatened. Tr. 178-80. 
  • The Defendant’s partner never saw a gun and never supported that version of the encounter. He did see the victim’s left hand and there was no gun in it. Tr. 201, 172-75, 219; Exhibit 158.
• The victim had a bullet in his pocket at the morgue, but not at the crime scene. Tr. 352-53, 377-78; Exhibit 112; Exhibit 113. Tr. 391; Exhibit 114; Exhibit 115.

Also see Judge’s findings: No probable cause, Tr. 697; No pursuit, Tr. 698. 

Baker continued:

I want to again acknowledge the formidable team who tried this case to verdict and then defended the Trial Court’s verdict before the Court of Appeals. They conducted themselves professionally with a deep knowledge of the law while they continued to face unfair scrutiny because they were assigned this case. They are Deputy Chief Dion Sankar, Chief Trial Assistant Ben Cox, Assistant Prosecutor Tim Dollar and Trial Team Leader Terrence Messonnier. Many others in my office supported their efforts.

I want to again acknowledge the loss of Cameron Lamb. He was a father, son, brother, friend to many, and member of this community. I want to acknowledge his family. Like other homicide victims’ families who must accept the fate of living without a loved one, they continue to struggle with this loss. They have endured a dishonest campaign designed to devalue the life of their loved one and malign his character. They accepted a manslaughter charge, rather than a murder charge. They trusted our judgment. Our office reached out today to the victim’s family. They are greatly relieved by today’s ruling.

This case marks a terrible tragedy in our community. But today’s ruling is an opportunity for reflection and a new path forward. I reached out to Kansas City Police Chief Stacey Graves to seek a pathway forward for the betterment of our community. Appeals Court Ruling