Greitens indicated that his legal fees were over $2 million and that he could not afford to go to trial on the charges. Gardner insisted that she remained “confident we have the evidence required to pursue charges against Mr. Greitens, but sometimes pursuing charges is not the right thing to do for our city or our state.”
The final seven stipulations in the agreement include two sealed stipulations. I also have concerns over conditions being removed from the public scrutiny in a case involving their governor.
However, I am most concerned about the condition that Greitens release Gardner and her office from civil liability. In my view, these conditions should be viewed as improper from a public policy standpoint. In negotiating an agreement with an alleged felon, Gardner should not be adding conditions to benefit herself or her office. Likewise, it should be treated as improper to force a defendant to negotiate protections for the prosecutors as a condition for his having charges dropped.
As part of the agreement, including the protection for Gardner herself, Greitens was not expected to plead guilty to a single count.
Greitens could still face the refiling of charged dropped last month of his alleged invasion-of-privacy in February in St. Louis. The Missouri House of Representatives also investigated the allegations involving a former hair stylist of Greitens who had an affair with him before he became governor. She accused him of assault, including spanking her and forcing oral sex as well as blackmail involving revealing pictures.
As Missouri looks at this scandal for possible reforms, it would be wise to consider a ban on prosecutors negotiating for their own immunity or protection from lawsuit. If there are grounds for such lawsuits, it is in the public’s interest to have those allegations adjudicated.