Prosecutors drop invasion-of-privacy case against Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, plan to re-file charge

FOX: St. Louis prosecutors announced Monday that they have dropped a felony invasion-of-privacy charge against Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, but added that they planned to re-file the case.

The announcement came on the third day of jury selection after the judge in the case granted a request by Greitens’ attorneys to call St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner as a witness.

Greitens’ representatives have accused Gardner of misconduct in the case, focusing on the hiring of a private investigator, William Tisaby, whom Greitens’ lawyers have accused of perjury.

Gardner spokeswoman Susan Ryan called the decision by Judge Rex Burlison “unprecedented” and said it put the circuit attorney in an “impossible position.” She added that Gardner would decide whether to pursue the case with a special prosecutor or appoint one of her assistants to try the matter in her place.

“A defendant who wishes to call a prosecutor as a witness must demonstrate a compelling and legitimate reason to do so,” Ryan said. “Governor Greitens has produced no compelling reason to include the Circuit Attorney as a witness for any purpose. The defense team knows that the tactic of endorsing the Circuit Attorney as a witness is part of their ongoing effort to distract people from the defendant’s actions …”

Speaking outside the St. Louis courthouse, Greitens said the prosecution’s move was “a great victory” that “has been a long time coming.”

The governor apologized for what he called “the pain that this process and my actions have caused my family, my friends, and the people of Missouri.”  read more

12 Comments on Prosecutors drop invasion-of-privacy case against Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, plan to re-file charge

  1. Keep in mind that Greitens is not really a Republican. He and his family are lifelong Democrats. He switched party affiliation because he had no chance of defeating the Democrat in the primary.

    The article also fails to mention that the photo at the center of this case and the basis for charge, does not seem to exist.

Comments are closed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!