Re: MO Governor
A bit of background: The State alleges that, almost three years ago, the Governor took a compromising photograph of a woman with whom he had an affair and transmitted it. That’s the charge on which the indictment is based, and that’s why, as a long-time prosecutor, I’m stunned that there’s any indictment in this case at all. Why? Because right out of the gate, in court, the State admitted they do not have the photograph purported to have been taken and no evidence that it was transmitted. They are simply asking you to believe such acts occurred because they wish it so.
Where is the evidence that a photograph exists? Where is the evidence that if a photograph ever existed, that it was transmitted? Without this photograph, essential elements of the alleged “crime” are absent. The lady in question has said that she believes a photo was taken because she detected a flash, but admitted she was blindfolded (apparently of her own volition) while she was engaged in activities with Mr. Greitens. To establish that a crime was committed, it is essential that the evidence be produced. If the State ever had such photograph, it would have seized it as evidence, or risk being accused of incompetence. But they have admitted they don’t have it, which leads to a natural question: if no photo exists, then where is the probable cause to believe that a crime exists? Is it simply the woman’s statement that she believes a photo was taken because she detected a flash while she was blindfolded? And if they don’t have evidence of transmission, how can they charge the Governor under this statute?
In our legal system, the State is under an obligation to surrender “any material or information, within the possession or control of the state, which tends to negate the guilt of the defendant…” — meaning that the State has an obligation, not just to prosecute, but to see that the accused has a fair trial and is accorded justice. In other words, the Circuit Attorney cannot willfully fail to produce evidence that is material and exculpatory to the defendant, simply to secure a conviction. If the State has knowledge of the whereabouts of such evidence, they are required to obtain it and give it to the defense. Not revealing the purported photograph is contrary to all of the principles and requirements which are the foundation of our justice system.
When asked about the evidence in court, the Circuit Attorney told the judge that she needed time to collect it. The time they needed was just until the mid-term elections in November. That date can seem arbitrary, but it’s not. I think this smacks of politics.
[same butt-hurt St. Louis attorney, plus Josh Hawley, who is going to run as Repub against Demo MO senator, so, win or lose, Demos get brownie-points for being Demos going after Repubs, plus Hawley gets some Demo support -- it's mostly about politics]
Invasion of privacy charges against MO governor Greitens -- case dismissed.
- « Previous
- Next »