Ray County Prosecuting Attorney Camille Johnston has been barred from exercising the authority of her office as Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway seeks her removal over allegations of misconduct, conflicts of interest and neglect of her official duties. 

In a petition for quo warranto filed July 16, Hanaway alleges Johnston engaged in undisclosed romantic relationships that conflicted with her responsibilities as prosecutor, failed to seek disqualification from cases involving those relationships, assisted a sexual assault suspect in avoiding apprehension and created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation within the Ray County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. The attorney general argues Johnston's alleged conduct constitutes willful violations and neglect of her official duties and warrants her removal from office.  

A preliminary order issued the same day by 43rd Circuit Court Judge Daren L. Adkins prohibits Johnston, pending further order of the court, from engaging in any activity or exercising any authority as Ray County prosecuting attorney. Adkins was assigned to the case after Eighth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Kevin Walden recused himself. The order also prohibits Johnston from entering the prosecutor's offices or the Ray County Courthouse or conducting business with the prosecutor's office unless expressly authorized by the court. Johnston was ordered to file an answer to the petition within 10 days.  

The petition was filed under Missouri law governing quo warranto proceedings, which may be used to seek the removal of public officers alleged to have forfeited their offices through misconduct. 

According to the attorney general's supporting filing, state law provides that an elected or appointed county official shall forfeit office for a willful or fraudulent violation or neglect of an official duty or for knowingly or willfully failing to perform a duty related to the execution or enforcement of Missouri's criminal laws and may be removed through procedures established under state law. 

As prosecuting attorney, Johnston is responsible for supervising an office that prosecutes criminal offenses in the county. The attorney general's filing states prosecutors are expected to carry out their duties through a "good faith exercise of sound discretion" and have a responsibility to serve as a "minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate." 

Hanaway argues Johnston's alleged actions amount to willful and knowing misconduct and neglect of her duties and that she has therefore forfeited her right to hold office. 

The attorney general's supporting filing further argues that under Missouri precedent, qualifying official misconduct results in the "automatic forfeiture" of office, with a court proceeding required to establish the facts and formally declare the forfeiture. 

"Respondent's (Johnston) misconduct in the instant case is egregious and mandates her removal from office," the supporting filing states. 

The petition first details allegations involving an attorney identified in court documents only as T.T., who is described as a licensed attorney practicing in Ray County. According to the filing, T.T. has represented and continues to represent numerous criminal defendants facing charges filed by Johnston in her role as prosecutor. 

Hanaway alleges Johnston and T.T. have engaged in an intimate and romantic relationship that was intentionally concealed from the public, defendants charged by Johnston, Ray County residents and judicial officers before whom the two appear. 

"This undisclosed relationship creates, at the very least, an obvious appearance of a conflict of interest," the petition states. "For instance, Rule 4-1.7(a)(2) states a concurrent conflict of interest exists and arises from 'a personal interest of the lawyer' that creates a significant risk that the Respondent's ability to represent the citizens of Ray County will be materially limited." 

The petition alleges because of the size of the Ray County Prosecuting Attorney's Office and Johnston's role supervising its employees, she was required under Missouri's Rules of Professional Conduct to disqualify herself and her office and seek a special prosecutor in cases in which T.T. represented a defendant. 

"Respondent failed to do so," the petition reads. "Not only is this conflict being withheld from the citizens of Ray County who elected Respondent, but Respondent is also aware it is a conflict that should be, and must be, disclosed to the defendants being represented by T.T. in Ray County." 

The petition next alleges Johnston was involved in another romantic relationship with an individual identified only as C.W., described in the filing as a prospective defendant who was charged with acts of domestic violence against his wife. According to the petition, a former employee of the prosecutor's office, identified as J.M., became aware of the alleged relationship. 

Hanaway alleges Johnston retaliated against the former employee by firing her after learning J.M. knew about the relationship. The petition further alleges Johnston was eventually disqualified from prosecuting the domestic violence charges after local law enforcement officers became aware of the alleged relationship and sought the appointment of a special prosecutor. 

"Respondent recognized the impropriety of the relationship and intentionally and willfully withheld information regarding that relationship from the victim, the staff and employees of the Ray County Prosecuting Attorney's Office and the circuit court," the petition states. 

According to the filing, Johnston failed to seek her own disqualification despite what the attorney general describes as a readily apparent conflict and concerns about whether Johnston could objectively evaluate the evidence and make professional decisions in the case. 

"Instead, the circuit court ordered Respondent's disqualification when it became aware of the allegations regarding the Respondent's relationship with C.W.," the document says.  

Hanaway alleges Johnston's failure to seek disqualification was willful, arguing Johnston had sought to disqualify her office in other cases when potential conflicts of interest existed.  

Similar allegations were previously raised in a civil lawsuit filed by former Ray County employee Joslynn Marco and reported by the Richmond News in October 2025. 

Marco's lawsuit alleged she was terminated in retaliation after reporting concerns about an alleged romantic relationship between Johnston and a criminal defendant in a domestic violence case. According to the lawsuit, Marco became aware of the alleged relationship and reported her concerns to Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Tara Medlin, who allegedly informed Johnston about the report. Marco alleged she was fired shortly afterward. 

The lawsuit further says Johnston failed to disclose the alleged relationship or recuse herself from the criminal case. The petition alleged she was later disqualified from the case and a special prosecutor was appointed. 

The petition also alleges Johnston created an atmosphere of "fear and tension" within the Ray County Prosecuting Attorney's Office through "outbursts of anger and violence," which the filing alleges caused staff members to be fearful whenever Johnston was in the office. 

In its supporting filing, the attorney general further alleges Johnston behaved in an erratic manner that created fear and concern for personal safety within the office, making it impossible for staff members to fulfill their duties and provide adequate service to Ray County residents. 

The filing next details allegations involving an individual identified in the filing only as J.G., whom Hanaway alleges was a suspect in a crime of sexual violence and was or became involved in a romantic and intimate relationship with Johnston. 

According to the filing, Johnston and J.G. had previously lived together and been involved in a romantic and intimate relationship. The documents allege Johnston was informed by local law enforcement officers and members of the Missouri State Highway Patrol as early as Sept. 15, 2020, that J.G. was a suspect in a sexual assault in Ray County. 

Hanaway alleges Johnston knew J.G.'s whereabouts but deliberately failed to disclose his location and did not seek to disqualify herself from the investigation and prosecution of the case despite the alleged conflict of interest. The filing further says Johnston later visited J.G. in Mississippi, where he had allegedly absconded and subsequently traveled to Florida to vacation with him. According to the petition, Johnston drove her personal vehicle to Mississippi in 2023 and gave J.G. the vehicle title. 

The petition states J.G. was arrested in Ohio in 2024 and was awaiting trial on sexual offenses that included felony charges. The circuit court later disqualified Johnston and her office from prosecuting J.G., but the disqualification was not requested by Johnston. 

Hanaway alleges Johnston withheld information about J.G. from the victim, law enforcement and personnel in her office and failed to bring criminal charges because of the alleged relationship. 

"Furthermore, Respondent actually assisted J.G. in absconding from Ray County, knowing he had been accused of a sexual offense and he was under criminal investigation," the petition states. "This assistance in absconding included making a vehicle available to J.G. so he could abscond and with knowledge he would likely return to his native country of Mexico to avoid detection and apprehension." 

The attorney general further alleges Johnston knew J.G. was a citizen of Mexico and had been in the United States illegally since 2019. The documents argue Johnston was aware, or should have been aware, other prosecutors had been disciplined and suspended by the Missouri Supreme Court for inappropriate relationships with suspects and witnesses. It says Johnston kept the relationships secret and failed to fulfill her ethical responsibility to disqualify herself and her office. 

Hanaway further alleges Johnston willfully withheld information about the relationships described in the petition and falsely denied the existence of the relationships when questioned. 

The allegations involving J.G. correspond with the criminal case against Juan-David Gutierrez, whose connection to Johnston was first reported by the Richmond News in May 2024. 

The Richmond News first published information about the connection on May 17, 2024, reporting Johnston had given Gutierrez the title to her personal vehicle in 2023. The information is now included among the allegations outlined by the attorney general in the effort to remove Johnston from office. 

Gutierrez is charged with first-degree sodomy or attempted sodomy, an unclassified felony, and second-degree sodomy, a class D felony. His jury trial, which had been scheduled to begin July 13, was canceled after the court granted Gutierrez's motion to suppress and granted the state's request to continue the trial to appeal the suppression ruling. A motion by Gutierrez seeking dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations remains under advisement. The case is scheduled for a status hearing or trial setting at 1:30 p.m. on Sept. 18. 

Beyond serving as grounds for Johnston's removal from office, Hanaway argues the alleged conduct could carry potential criminal implications. The attorney general contends Johnston's actions likely constitute two criminal offenses under Missouri law: acceding to corruption and hindering prosecution. The quo warranto proceeding, however, does not criminally charge Johnston with either offense. 

According to the petition, acceding to corruption occurs when a public servant knowingly solicits, accepts or agrees to accept a direct or indirect benefit in return for an official action, exercise of discretion or violation of a known legal duty. 

Hanaway alleges Johnston's conduct likely constitutes the class D felony of acceding to corruption by receiving or accepting a benefit, directly or indirectly, in exchange for violating her known duty as a "minister of justice." 

The filing also cites Missouri's hindering prosecution statute, which includes harboring or concealing a person or providing money, transportation or other means to help someone avoid discovery or apprehension. 

Hanaway alleges Johnston's conduct likely constitutes the class E felony of hindering prosecution by harboring or concealing another person or by providing transportation or other means to avoid discovery or apprehension. 

Hanaway ultimately asks the court to enter a judgment removing Johnston from office, arguing her alleged willful violations and neglect of her duties have resulted in the forfeiture of her position as Ray County prosecuting attorney. 

The Richmond News contacted Johnston through her personal phone number seeking comment on the allegations and removal action. Johnston referred the newspaper to her attorney, Chad Gardner.  

"Due to the ongoing nature of the litigation, we will not be making any statements or comments at this time,” stated Gardner.  

The newspaper also contacted the Ray County Prosecuting Attorney's Office seeking to confirm whether Medlin, the current assistant prosecuting attorney and only candidate for Ray County prosecuting attorney in the August primary election, will assume prosecutorial duties. An employee who answered the phone said the office could not confirm who would assume those duties and was awaiting direction on how to proceed. 

The Richmond News will continue ongoing coverage of the case. Additional information obtained regarding the case will be included in the July 24 edition of the newspaper.