IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Cause No. 1822-CR00642-01 v. ) ) Division No. 16 ERIC GREITENS, ) ) Defendant. )

Motion to Intervene and for Reasonable Notice of Court Proceedings

Movants (1) Meredith Corporation d/b/a KMOV-TV, (2) The Associated Press, (3)

Tribune Media Company, which through subsidiaries owns televisions stations KTVI and

KPLR-TV, St. Louis, and WDAF-TV, Kansas City, (4) American City Business Journals, Inc.

d/b/a St. Louis Business Journal, and (5) Riverfront Times, LLC, d/b/a Riverfront Times, by their undersigned attorneys, request leave to intervene herein for the limited purpose of

requesting that the Court provide Movants with reasonable advance notice of proceedings.

Specifically, Movants request that this Court establish procedures to ensure the news

media are provided with reasonable advance notice of court proceedings in this action.

In support, Movants state:

1. This case is a criminal action against the governor of Missouri, Eric Greitens.

There is, of course, widespread public interest in the case because it may have significant impact on the government of the state, and because citizens of Missouri have interest in their governor and his alleged misconduct.

2. Movants are news media organizations that report news and information to citizens and residents of Missouri. Meredith Corporation operates television station KMOV-TV in St. Louis. Tribune Media Company, through subsidiaries, operates television

stations KTVI (Fox2) and KPLR-TV in St. Louis, and WDAF-TV (Fox4) in Kansas City. The

Associated Press, an independent, not-for-profit news cooperative, provides news content

and services, and operates a news bureau in various cities in Missouri including St. Louis.

American City Business Journals publishes the St. Louis Business Journal, a weekly business newspaper. Riverfront Times LLC publishes the Riverfront Times, a weekly newspaper.

3. Intervention is the typical and proper procedure for a media organization’s

request for access to judicial proceedings or materials. This procedure was followed, and

permitted, in Pulitzer Publishing Co. v. Transit Casualty Co. (In re Transit Cas. Co.), 43 S.W.2d

293 (Mo. banc 2001), where the Supreme Court allowed a media company’s request for

access to documents from in a legal proceeding. See also Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Kaye, 256

F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2001) (recognizing media intervention as the proper procedure with respect to media requests for access to court proceedings).

4. All court proceedings in Missouri are presumptively open. Mo. Const. Art. I, §

14 (“the courts of justice shall be open to every person”); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 476.170 (“[t]he sitting of every court shall be public and every person may freely attend same”).

5. Despite the Missouri constitutional and statutory directive for open courts,

the proceedings in this case have not been readily accessible to the public or to the news media, who act as the public’s eyes and ears as to legal proceedings.

6. No notice was given to the media of defendant’s initial appearance, and reporters who sought access were not allowed to enter the courtroom and observe it.

Similarly, proceedings were apparently held on Monday, February 26, 2018, in which counsel discussed various issues with the court, but the hearing was not scheduled on the

- 2 - court’s docket and no notice of it was given to the media or the public. Later this week, on

Wednesday, February 28, 2018, another hearing was held, and interested media

representatives who have been covering the case were given only very short notice of it.

7. Because of the subject matter of this case and the public interest in it, it is important for the public to be able to follow all proceedings, and the news media necessarily act as proxy for the public in this regard. Accordingly, without effective advance notice to the media, and sufficient time for news reporters to get to court to observe the proceedings, the public will be cut off from the full opportunity to monitor and

follow these proceedings. In addition to depriving the public of information, this situation

can also be detrimental to the public’s confidence in the courts.

8. The United States Supreme Court has held, in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior

Court of Cal., 478 U.S. 1, 10 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”), that “there has been a tradition of

accessibility to preliminary hearings,” and accordingly the First Amendment right of public

access to criminal proceedings extends to not only to criminal trials but also to substantive

preliminary hearings in criminal cases.

9. Under Press-Enterprise II, because of the presumption of openness of criminal proceedings—which has been recognized in Missouri in State ex rel. Pulitzer, Inc. v.

Autrey, 19 S.W.3d 710, 713 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)—the Supreme Court held that a preliminary hearing cannot be closed “unless specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that ‘closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’” Press-Enterprise II at 13-14 (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.,

464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984)) (“Press-Enterprise I”).

- 3 - 10. Advance notice can be readily given to the media. It can be as simple as having court hearings set up in advance (usually at least several days in advance) through

CaseNet, as occurs with the great majority of hearings in local courts. In extraordinary situations, where one or more of the parties seeks a hearing on unusually short notice, the court clerk can inform Bill McCormac, who serves as the court-appointed media

coordinator for St. Louis City and County. Upon receiving notice, he would promptly notify

all local news media on his contact lists. With this procedure, any hearings can be scheduled so that there is sufficient time for the media to attend.

FOR THESE REASONS, Movants request that this court establish procedures to

ensure that reasonable advance notice is given to them and other interested news media

organizations of any further proceedings in this matter.

Respectfully submitted, THOMPSON COBURN LLP

By ___/s/ Mark Sableman______Mark Sableman, MO-36276 Michael L. Nepple, MO-42082 One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, Missouri 63101 314-552-6000 FAX 314-552-7000 [email protected]

Attorneys for Movants KMOV-TV, KTVI, KPLR-TV, WDAF-TV, the St. Louis Business Journal, and the Riverfront Times

THE MANEKE LAW GROUP, L.C.

By _/s/ Jean Maneke______Jean Maneke MO-28946 2345 Grand Blvd., Ste. 1600 Kansas City, MO 64112

- 4 - (816) 753-9000 FAX (816) 753-9009 [email protected]

Attorneys for The Associated Press

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 1, 2018, the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court to be served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all counsel of record.

Mark Sableman

- 5 -