David Steinmeyer....sentence...12 1/2 years for murder.  Statement made by him...  "When you shoot someone, you want to do it again and again. "  he bragged of killing two men, and his psychological profile showed he was capable.  (See Appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court for Robert Shafer.) Steinmeyer suggested that one girl tell the police that on the night of the murders, she had spent the entire night with him.  Steinmeyer failed a lie detector test when the question was "was he the shooter?" was asked.  he told over 40 people, including his mother, that he had killed the two men.  He told the police to "go swimming for the gun."  The gun that was tested was ruled inconclusive and returned to Robert's sister.  David's high school principal stated that David was the most severely behaviorally disordered student in the school.  The doctor who evaluated Steinmeyer for the juvenile court after his 1990 arrest disgnosed him as having "conduct disorder, probably solitary aggressive type, the essential feature of which is agressive physical behaviour."  The doctor continued and identified " a potential for extremely violent and assaultive behaviour." While incarcerated in the St. Charles County Jail in May 1992, Steinmeyer was acharged with second degree assault and armed criminal action for assaulting another person in jail.  Psychiatric records showed that by the time Steinmeyer was thirteen, he had a history of drug abuse, vandalism, and gang fighting.  A 1987 diagnosis states,  As he is still thirteen, we call this conduct disorder, undersocialised agressive.  He has all the earmarks of becoming a sociopath.   A juvenile court evaluation by a doctor in 1988 noted that Steinmeyer had threatened teachers, threatened people with knives and guns, been suspended from school about ten times per year because of fighting, and had expressed serious homicidal threats.

Robert Shafer was suicidal.  He was judged as non violent.  Robert has been diagnosed as having "non-agressive type" conduct disorder, meaning the person typically does not engage in physical violence or aggression.  He was given the death penalty, even though it was not a death penalty case.  Because Robert was suicidal, he asked for the death penalty, making up mitigating factors long after he had been arrested.  Because of Robert's mental health, he was extremely paranoid of prison and jail.  The gun he reportedly used was at first excluded as the murder weapon, then was ruled as inconclusive.  Robert had no gun powder residue on him.  Regarding the gun, Steinmeyer told authorities, "You'll have to go swimming."
Robert was not brought to trial for over two years.  The state actively sought to have him go
pro se, took an incriminating statement from him without counsel's presence at the very time the state knew counsel was investigating Robert's mental health, and used that statement to obtain the death penalty.

At the time of the murders, Robert Shafer was 19, and David Steinmeyer was 16.  Robert's attorneys failed to investigate his innocence and defences, failed to properly object to admission of a report of a doctor, failed to suppress a statement made when Robert gave up. Additionally, the attorney would not communicate with Robert.  Initially in his case, Robert did not want to plead guilty or receive the death penalty.  Robert wanted an attorney to represent him well and communicate with him.  Instead, he got an attorney that was later forced to resign from the public defenders office because it was eventually discovered that he had a pattern of not contacting clients and not investigating cases.   The attorney ignored Robert, adopted a hostile attitude toward him, was not interested in what Robert had to say, and told him he was guilty.  The attorney, Mr Madison, was finally removed from Robert's case.  When Madison told his own supervisor that he thought Robert " was guilty" and that, "whatever Robert got was what Robert deserved."  The damage has been done by this attorney.  His neglect has ignited the frustration, distrust, and impulsive self destructive behaviour that has plagued Robert his entire life, and that infected the rest of his case.  The next attorneys Robert was assigned had a conflict of interest and in as they were working with David Steinmeyer's attorney, that conflict eventually caused the public defenders office they worked in to withdraw.

Further, none of the three attorneys had investigated the case.  The crime occured in April 1990.  The next attorney assigned only interviewed one person... Roberts sister.  By that time, Robert had been in jail more than two years.  His attorney's failed to investigate Steinmeyer's role in the offence.  Even though much evidence about Steinmeyer's role was available, along with Steinmeyer's background.

Testimony that Steinmeyer had shot the victims and had been acting strangely on April 30, obviously could have been used by Roberts counsel to assert a defense that Steinmeyer was the major or sole actor in the shootings.  Evidence regarding Steinmeyer's background could have been used to support this theory, or could have been used to negotiate a favourable plea bargain for Robert.  At several points, Robert wanted his attorney to negotiate a plea bargain for a sentence less than death.  Robert wanted Madison to pursue a plea bargain for a term of years.  Robert also asked another attorney to negotiate a deal whereby he could testify against Steinmeyer in exchange for a term of 10 or 20 years.  No plea was made by the attorneys.  The case had not been investigated thoroughly so one attorney decided not to ask for a plea bargain.  That a favourable plea bargain likely could have been negotiated is seen in the fact that as early as April 1992, the prosecutor was on record as wanting Robert to testify against Steinmeyer and that Steinmeyer ultimately was offered and recieved a 12 1/2 year deal for himself.  At that time, Steinmeyer was told to "never admit to the crime again."

At least one psychologist stated that Robert was not competent to go pro se. The plea court never conducted a competency hearing.  However, Robert was allowed to go pro se.

While the people of this state are told there wee convictions in this case, one resulting in the death penalty, whatt the public doesn't realize is that the man on death row is innocent of this crime, and the actual murderer, who has boasted of wanting to kill again, will be released back into our society, with no rehabilitation.

           Robert Andrew Shafer  990191/2A-24
                    Potosi Correctional Center
                            RT. 2  Box 2222
                          Mineral Point, MO
                              63660  USA

                                               The image below was deleted
                                                        by NBCi in April 2001
                                                      

                 The CCADP offers free webpages to over 500 Death Row Prisoners
                                              Contact us for more information.
                                                  info@ccadp.org
            
                                                        "The Eyes Of The World Are Watching Now"