IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, Cause No. 1822-CR00642 v. ERIC GREITENS, Defendant. MOTION TO EXPEDITE THE TRIAL SETTING FROM MAY 14. TO THE FIRST WEEK IN APRIL COMES NOW defense counsel, and seeks the Court?s reconsideration of the request for a trial in April 2018. In support of this request, defense counsel states as follows: 1. As the Court is aware, the Missouri legislature has begun a process of investigating the same allegations which are the core of the pending indictment against Governor Greitens. The Committee conducting the investigation has informed defense counsel that its goal is to issue a report on April 9, 2018. 2. Resolution of the pending indictment before the issuance of any report by the Committee would be signi?cantly in?uential in the conclusions reached by the Committee. 3. As the Court noted at the February 28, 2018 hearing, ?[t]his case affects the course of business of the State of Missouri. And I don?t think that there's any case that affects all the residents in the State of Missouri more than this does.? 4. Also at the February 28 hearing, the Circuit Attorney?s Office announced that it did not have evidence to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Wei 173190 BLUE 8mm '38 :10 MC) Delhi Aileoguoawag The lack of evidence necessary to justify this prosecution is exceedingly concerning, particularly when the Circuit Attorney choose to indict the sitting Governor of Missouri. Speci?cally: a. Though the core of the alleged offense is the taking of a photograph, the Circuit Attorney?s Of?ce has admitted it does not have any alleged photograph. b. Though under the statute charged the alleged photograph must depict an individual in a state of partial or full nudity (which is speci?cally de?ned by Missouri statute as showing speci?ed private parts of the body), none of the three indorsed witnesses for the prosecution testi?ed in the grand jury that they have ever seen any alleged photograph. Therefore, putting aside the lack of any such photograph, no witness exists who could say, if a photograph was ever taken, what image the alleged photograph depicted. Consequently, there exists no witness who could say that any alleged photograph depicted any individual in a state of partial or full nudity. 0. Though the felony with which Governor Greitens is charged requires proof of the essential element of the subsequent transmission of the alleged photograph in a manner that allowed access to that image via a computer, the grand jury was provided absolutely no evidence of any subsequent transmission whatsoever. K.S. testi?ed in the grand jury that she neither saw a camera nor a cell phone which could have been used to take the alleged photograph. Rather, she testified that she heard a sound similar to an iPhone camera. She and other grand jury witnesses were then asked ?Do you know if you can transmit or are: r3190 star; ?at Home; arm as i0 MES) peas Kuwait-mines send photos from an iPhone to social media.? Putting aside the speculation as to whether Governor Greitens had access to an iPhone on that alleged day, no witness was asked if there was a transmission, no witness was asked if they saw the alleged picture on social media, no witness was asked if they had even heard that the alleged photograph was somehow ?transmitted.? Rather, the grand jury was only told that if there was a picture taken, and if it was taken with an iPhone, then it might be possible to have the picture transmitted. That is not evidence of a transmission it is nothing more than wishful dreaming on the part of the Circuit Attorney. d. The key witness in the prosecution?s case is K.S. She has been extremely vocal, through her attorney, that she did not want to be a part of this case and begged to have her privacy respected. The Circuit Attorney decided that desire was not worthy and therefore proceeded to indict this case knowing there was insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. 6. Defense counsel is well aware that obtaining a proper jury pool for an April trial would be extremely dif?cult. Defense counsel, in any event, is also greatly concerned about finding jurors untainted by the negative press thus far, particularly that caused by the frequent communications made by the attorney for the Circuit Attorney?s witness P.S. Consequently, defense counsel has consulted with Governor Greitens, and will waive the right to a jury trial and accept a trial by the Court in order to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible. 7. For all these reasons, the trial of this matter should be heard before the Missouri legislature takes any public action. That can only happen if the Court moves the trial setting from May 14 to the ?rst week of April. eta raise - area? ?at Lin-raw - saw"; ?is i0 lint} nails MEBDWOJEUQIE Dated: March 19, 2018 Respectfully submitted, Down BENNETT LLP By: James G. Martin James G. Martin, #33586 James F. Bennett, #46826 Edward L. Dowd, #28785 Michelle Nasser, #68952 7733 Blvd, Suite 1900 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 889-7300 Fax: (314) 863-2111 jmartin@dowdbennett.com jbennett@dowdbennett.com ed0wd@dowdbennett.com mnasser@dowdbennett.com John F. Garvey, #35879 Carey Danis Lowe 8235 Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 72547700 Fax: (314) 678-3401 jgarvey@careydanis.com N. Scott Rosenblum, #33390 Rosenblum Schwartz Fry 120 S. Central Ave, Suite 130 Clayton, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 862-4332 Attorneys for Defendant We; 98:90 area ?51 Lao-sea: - as 40 43K) Dana avenue-403123 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing was ?led electronically with the Clerk of the Court to be served by operation of the Court?s electronic ?ling system upon the City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney?s Of?ce this 19th day of March, 2018. James G. Martin ted $72190 sine" ?m tin-mm: sum '15; 40 mo pang ?agella-snare