ST. LOUIS, MO – October 6, 2026 (STL.News) Former St. Louis Sheriff Alfred Montgomery returned to federal court Tuesday, just eight days before the first anniversary of his detention, as his attorneys continued fighting over evidence in a criminal case that began with a single misdemeanor civil-rights charge and later expanded to include five felony counts.
Montgomery appeared for an evidentiary hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The federal court’s official daily docket lists the proceeding in United States v. Alfred Montgomery, Case No. 4:25-cr-00448-CMS-JMB, at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday in Courtroom 15-South in St. Louis.
Tuesday’s dispute centered on emails obtained during the federal investigation that Montgomery’s defense argues include attorney-client privileged communications and should not be admitted as evidence.
The hearing represents another step toward an eventual trial in a case that has kept Montgomery in federal custody since Oct. 14, 2025.
As of Tuesday, no trial date had been announced.
Case began with February 2025 jail confrontation
The federal prosecution stems initially from an encounter at the St. Louis City Justice Center on Feb. 14, 2025.
A federal grand jury indicted Montgomery on Aug. 27, 2025, on one misdemeanor count of deprivation of rights under color of law.
Federal prosecutors alleged that Montgomery, then the elected St. Louis sheriff, deprived the acting commissioner of the City Justice Center of her constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizure by directing and participating in her restraint and detention.
The official involved was acting corrections commissioner Tammy Ross.
Montgomery appeared in federal court the next morning and pleaded not guilty.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri said the misdemeanor charge carries a maximum of one year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000.
The indictment is an accusation. Montgomery has not been convicted of that charge and is presumed innocent.
The case, however, did not remain a one-count misdemeanor prosecution.
Five felony charges added in October
On Oct. 8, 2025, a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment accusing Montgomery of retaliating against people he allegedly believed were cooperating with the federal investigation.
The new indictment retained the original civil-rights charge while adding five felony counts — four counts of witness retaliation and one count of witness tampering.
That increased the federal case against Montgomery to six counts.
Federal prosecutors alleged that Montgomery took actions against potential witnesses and attempted to interfere with the government’s investigation.
The government’s allegations included Montgomery’s alleged use of an undisclosed cellphone as authorities investigated his conduct.
Montgomery has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Defense attorney Justin Gelfand has disputed the government’s characterization of Montgomery’s actions and has maintained that his client did not commit the federal crimes alleged in the indictment.
The additional felony charges also fundamentally changed Montgomery’s legal exposure and his pretrial status.
Judge revoked Montgomery’s bond
On Oct. 14, 2025, Bodenhausen revoked Montgomery’s bond and ordered him detained pending trial.
Prosecutors argued there was a serious risk that Montgomery could attempt to threaten, injure or intimidate witnesses or jurors.
The detention order was based on Montgomery’s status while awaiting trial and was not a criminal sentence.
That distinction is important as Montgomery approaches one year behind bars.
Tuesday’s hearing occurred eight days before Oct. 14, 2026, the anniversary of the date he was ordered into federal custody.
Montgomery has therefore spent nearly a year incarcerated without being convicted in the pending federal case.
His detention should not be confused with serving a sentence on the original misdemeanor charge.
Although that first offense carries a statutory maximum of one year in prison, Montgomery is now facing five additional felony charges, and his continued detention resulted from the federal court’s decision to revoke his pretrial release after those allegations emerged.
Defense challenges emails obtained by FBI
Tuesday’s hearing focused on another major battle between Montgomery’s lawyers and federal prosecutors: communications obtained during the investigation.
Gelfand argued that some emails the FBI obtained were protected by attorney-client privilege and should be excluded from evidence.
According to courtroom reporting by First Alert 4 investigative reporter Chris Hayes, Gelfand pointed to an email during the hearing in which Montgomery contacted city counselors seeking a meeting.
Gelfand characterized that communication as an example of an email the defense believes was privileged.
Whether particular communications are legally privileged — and what consequences should follow if investigators obtained or reviewed protected communications — is a matter for the federal court to determine.
The defense has raised the broader privilege issue before.
In filings earlier this year, Montgomery’s attorneys sought dismissal of the case, arguing in part that the government’s review of his email account exposed prosecutors to attorney-client communications.
The defense alternatively sought to have attorneys from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri disqualified from prosecuting the case.
Those assertions are defense arguments. They should not be interpreted as findings that federal prosecutors or investigators committed misconduct.
Montgomery wants case before jury
Following Tuesday’s proceeding, Gelfand said his client wants the case to move toward trial.
“Sheriff Montgomery wants to get this case before a jury as soon as he possibly can,” Gelfand told First Alert 4.
Gelfand added that the defense believes Montgomery has been unjustly charged.
The length of Montgomery’s detention makes the absence of a trial date increasingly significant.
When federal prosecutors first charged him in August 2025, Montgomery faced only the misdemeanor civil-rights count carrying a maximum possible prison sentence of one year.
Less than two months later, prosecutors added the five felony charges.
Montgomery was then jailed pending trial.
Nearly a year later, the parties are still litigating pretrial questions involving the evidence that could ultimately be presented to a jury.
State proceeding removed Montgomery from office
While Montgomery’s federal criminal prosecution was unfolding, Missouri officials pursued a separate legal effort to remove him as St. Louis sheriff.
That case was a civil quo warranto proceeding and was legally separate from the federal criminal prosecution.
On Oct. 29, 2025, St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer temporarily removed Montgomery from his duties while the state removal case proceeded.
Former St. Louis Metropolitan Police Chief John Hayden Jr. was appointed interim sheriff that same day under a separate order from Presiding Circuit Judge Christopher McGraugh.
That chronology is important: Hayden’s appointment occurred while Montgomery was temporarily removed in October, not as a consequence of the later December judgment permanently removing Montgomery.
The state removal case subsequently went to trial.
On Dec. 23, 2025, Ohmer entered an order and judgment finding that Montgomery had willfully neglected his official duties and ordering him immediately and completely removed from the office of St. Louis sheriff.
The judgment cited two incidents supporting removal.
One involved the detention of Ross at the City Justice Center, which also forms the basis of Montgomery’s original federal civil-rights charge.
The other involved the detention and disarming of licensed security officer Darryl Wilson.
The state-court judgment was not a conviction on Montgomery’s federal criminal charges.
The two proceedings operate under different laws, different standards, and different burdens of proof.
Montgomery continued fighting removal
The December judgment did not end Montgomery’s state-court challenge.
His attorneys sought a new trial, arguing against the findings that resulted in his removal.
Ohmer denied that request in April 2026, finding the arguments in Montgomery’s motion unsupported by the evidence and law.
Montgomery also pursued appellate relief.
During that process, Ohmer stayed the removal judgment while Montgomery challenged the decision.
Meanwhile, Hayden continued serving under the separate October 2025 order appointing him interim sheriff.
The distinction resolves an otherwise confusing situation: Montgomery continued challenging the judgment that removed him from office, while Hayden remained responsible for carrying out the sheriff’s duties under the earlier interim appointment.
The legal fight over Montgomery’s status as sheriff therefore developed separately from the federal prosecution that kept him physically detained.
From newly elected sheriff to federal detainee
Montgomery’s fall from elected office unfolded with extraordinary speed.
He defeated longtime Sheriff Vernon Betts in the August 2024 Democratic primary and went on to win the November election.
Montgomery took office in January 2025.
The confrontation involving Ross occurred the following month.
By August 2025, a federal grand jury indicted Montgomery.
In October, the government added the five felony charges.
On Oct. 14, he was jailed pending trial.
Two weeks later, he was temporarily removed from his duties as sheriff.
In December, the state trial court entered its judgment removing him from office.
The federal criminal case nevertheless remains unresolved.
Nearly a year detained, but no conviction
Montgomery’s approaching one-year anniversary in custody presents an unusual contrast.
The federal prosecution started with an offense carrying a maximum possible prison term of one year.
Yet Montgomery has now spent nearly that amount of time detained before trial.
That does not mean Montgomery has served the sentence for the original charge or that the misdemeanor charge should automatically expire when he reaches one year in custody.
His detention is pretrial detention resulting from the revocation of his release after prosecutors brought the additional felony allegations.
If Montgomery is eventually convicted, federal law would address sentencing and credit for time already spent in federal custody.
For now, however, he remains an accused defendant awaiting resolution of the charges.
What comes next
The immediate focus returns to Bodenhausen and the unresolved pretrial motions.
The federal court must determine how to handle Montgomery’s challenges involving the emails and other evidence obtained during the investigation.
Those decisions could affect what evidence prosecutors can introduce if the case reaches trial.
What remains uncertain is when that trial will begin.
As of Tuesday’s hearing, no trial date had been set.
Montgomery will reach one year in federal detention on Oct. 14 unless his custody status changes before then.
The case has therefore traveled far from the single misdemeanor indictment announced in August 2025.
Montgomery now faces a six-count federal prosecution, remains detained pending trial, and continues contesting the government’s case.
But the fundamental legal principle remains unchanged.
The indictment contains allegations, not findings of criminal guilt.
Montgomery has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent of all six federal charges unless and until prosecutors prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read St. Louis Local News at STL.News