Governor Greitens And The Unethical Release-Dismissal Tactic

(The gun being held to the signer’s head is out of the frame…)

The resignation of Missouri Governor Eric Greitens (R), a result that appears to have been over-due, deserved, and necessary, also involved a common form of unethical prosecution. The device is called Release-Dismiss, and it looks, smells and feels unethical. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court and most of the states continue to allow it. They shouldn’t.

Greiten’s resignation came as a result of a plea deal after St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner agreed to dismiss charges that Greitens tampered with a computer donor list of a veterans’ charity he founded. The deal also included Grietens’ promise not to sue Gardner or her office.

Greitens’  legal fees were over $2 million, he said,  and he could not afford to go to trial on the charges.  Gardner  said  she was confident she had  the evidence required to convict  Greitens. (That’s what they all say.) But the fact remains that the threat of criminal prosecution was used to pressure Greitens into giving up his civil rights.

In a scholarly paper on this maneuver, one authority writes,

A phenomenon exists in the criminal justice world which allows a prosecutor to strike a bargain with a criminal defendant, permitting them both to cut their losses and walk away from a mutually bad situation. On occasions where arrested individuals may have been wronged by public officials in the course of their arrests, prosecutors may legally agree to dismiss defendants’ criminal charges in exchange for releases by the defendants of any civil claims arising from the arrests. The release-dismissal agreement, and variations upon its theme,’ have been the subject of controversy for several years.

Its supporters rely on the obvious efficiency embodied in the situation. Despite this efficiency, such agreements are dangerous, detrimental to the criminal justice system, and against the better interests of society.

I agree. So does Professor Turley, who wrote,

 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 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.

One problem that blocks reform is that the Supreme Court, in Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 286 (1987), refused to find such deals unconstitutional, basically citing, I kid you not, the rationalizations of “Everybody does it” and “It’s not the worst thing.” Almost all of the states have refused to find the tactic unethical, with Colorado and California being notable exceptions.  Virginia, in Legal Ethics Opinion 1867, expressed the more typical state bar policy:

In the absence of other factors indicating misconduct, the prosecutor’s exercise of discretion to dismiss pending charges pursuant to a release-dismissal agreement does not indicate that Rule 3.8(a) was violated.

A prosecutor, like any other lawyer, is subject to Rule 3.4(i), which forbids presenting criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter. If charges were initiated or trumped up in order to coerce a defendant into accepting a release-dismissal agreement, then the prosecutor’s conduct would violate this Rule. However, as in the case of accord and satisfaction agreements or agreements to pay restitution, if there is probable cause to maintain the charges and there is no other evidence that the charges were brought/maintained solely to coerce settlement of the civil matter, this Rule would not be violated by the negotiation of a release-dismissal agreement.

Although the Committee concludes that there is no need for a per se ban on release-dismissal agreements, any such agreement will be subject to intense legal and ethical scrutiny, as the Rumery court made clear. Thus, a prosecutor should not require release-dismissal agreements as a matter of course in dismissing criminal charges. To comply with Rule 3.4(i), a prosecutor should not seek a release of civil claims that are unrelated to the criminal charges at issue.

I don’t buy this reasoning. If there is valid misconduct to justify a lawsuit, the state’s legal representative should not try to block the suit. If there isn’t, then the state’s message should be “Take your best shot.” First, the tactic is inherently unethical because it suggests “the appearance of impropriety,” something a government employee, including a prosecutor, must avoid. Second, as Justice Stevens wrote in his vigorous dissent in Rumery:

[A]…person accused of crime should not be required to choose between a threatened indictment and trial, with their attendant publicity and the omnipresent possibility of wrongful conviction, and surrendering the right to a civil remedy against individuals who have violated his or her constitutional rights.


5 thoughts on “Governor Greitens And The Unethical Release-Dismissal Tactic

  1. Disclaimer: I have serious issues with the way plea bargains are used in this country, where the vast power of the state is used as a bludgeon to say “Plea it out, if you try to make us prove our case we will ruin you even if you win.”

    That being said, wouldn’t this protection make total sense? If I’m arrested and convicted, and then try to sue the state, the entire avenue of wrongful prosecution is closed to me (my conviction demonstrates the prosecution was justified). I could still sue for other abuses, but not that.

    If my charges are dismissed, wouldn’t that leave me open to file suit for unlawful arrest/prosecution, using the dismissal of charges as evidence that I was mistreated? It seems that requiring the defendant to waive their right to sue is just formalizing the idea that if someone walks away, you don’t use their retreat as an opportunity to punch them from behind.

    • I dunno, sometimes the plea bargain is a useful way to make sure you take a known bad guy out of circulation for at least some time, if not the full amount you could. It frankly depends on who you are dealing with. A career criminal may say go ahead and try me, because he has nothing to lose but time. A defendant who has an otherwise clean record, but who has screwed up, may have a home, family, etc., and doesn’t want to see that all trashed because of his error, and so might be inclined to plead.

      Wrongful prosecution is actually not that easy to prove, even if you are later acquitted. The dismissal of charges alone doesn’t get you over the legal threshold. You have to be able to prove that whoever initiated the prosecution didn’t have probable cause to initiate. Proving that a cop or prosecutor didn’t have probable cause to act is a much higher threshold than proving he didn’t have enough evidence to convict. Trust me on this one, I just had a case in which a scummy career criminal fled from one of my officers, throwing away a gun he was not legally permitted to have, but later beat the rap for the gun possession charge. He should have walked away, and he could have gone right back to sticking up bodegas and dealing heroin. Of course he had to turn around and sue my officer, thinking he could get a fat settlement out of the deal. The judge decided that the fact he was in a stairwell in the company of known gang members at night and took flight upon the approach of my officer was enough to give the officer probable cause, and tossed the case.

  2. This is another reason Trump was elected: the power of the Elite over the public.

    Most have no problem with that power (more fool they) when the rule of law is upheld, at least putatively. Under Obama, we learned that progressives in power no longer care about rule of law, and will turn the awesome power of government on individuals based on political, racial, or gender characteristics.

    Selective prosecution is another way to accomplish this end.

    See: Spygate, or any of the recent pardons from Trump.

    • Yeah, this whole thing strikes me as shitty. Right now, I am living on a fixed, social security income. Unfortunately, I am making too much (I think) to qualify for a Public Defender. If a Prosecutor charged me with literally ANYTHING, I’d just have to plead guilty, because I CANNOT afford an attorney, the local legal aid people have too much family law on their plate to even help settle my wife’s estate, so I’d be screwed. So I’m sorry, my view of the legal system is rather jaundiced. Guys like me CANNOT get justice…what we can get is screwed over by the system, a criminal record and prison time. It literally has nothing to do with race, it has to do with money.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.