ST. LOUIS — Defense attorneys for a St. Louis police sergeant charged with trying to dissuade another officer’s sexual assault victim from reporting her abuse said Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s office charged their client one day after the Statute of Limitations ran out, so the case should be dismissed.
Attorney Peter Bruntrager also argued in a motion that Gardner’s office has a conflict of interest in the case because his client, Sgt. Jatonya Clayborn-Muldrow, led an investigation into alleged misconduct on Gardner’s part in an unrelated case.
Gardner’s spokeswoman said she cannot comment on pending litigation.
Clayborn-Muldrow, 48, is one of three officers Gardner’s office charged this week in connection to a series of sexual assaults dating to 2009. Clayborn-Muldrow is accused of tampering with a witness, a misdemeanor, after police said she told an alleged victim the sexual assault was “just a misunderstanding,” and also appeared at Internal Affairs when the victim tried to file a complaint.
Prosecutors said Clayborn-Muldrow was trying to prevent the victim from reporting an alleged assault at the hands of Officer Lafael Lawshea.
Lawshea is facing five charges, three felonies and two misdemeanors related to several assaults dating to 2010. Officer Torey Phelps has been charged with one assault dating to 2009. Prosecutors say the men worked together to drug and abuse their victims.
A judge ordered Lafeal Lashea be held without bail and allowed Torey Phelps to post $10,000 bail
In his motion to disqualify Gardner’s office, Bruntrager said Gardner’s prosecution of his client is personal.
He notes Clayborn-Muldrow finished her report into an investigation of Gardner’s conduct during her prosecution of former Gov. Eric Greitens on March 12, 2020. Gardner’s investigator in that case was accused of lying under oath about whether he took notes while interviewing an alleged victim of invasion of privacy in that case. Gardner sat next to him during that interview, which was videotaped.
Clayborn-Muldrow was then suspended five days after she completed that report for allegedly trying to dissuade the sexual assault victim from filing a complaint.
“The Circuit Attorney’s actions thus far in charging the defendant are in direct retaliation for her role in the above investigation and a blatant attempt to discredit or block any testimony she may give in the pending criminal charges,” Bruntrager wrote. “The Circuit Attorney has a clear personal interest in this matter such that she cannot overcome the appearance of impropriety or exercise her discretionary function in an evenhanded way.”
In his motion to dismiss the case, Bruntrager noted Gardner’s office filed an original probable cause statement Tuesday from Sgt. Ernest Church, which read: “Defendant did provide the victim with information about how to report the sexual assault to internal affairs investigators.”
The next day, prosecutors filed an amended probable cause statement, which read: “Defendant did not provide the victim with information about how to report the sexual assault to internal affairs investigators.”
“Both probable cause statements allege that the defendant last contacted the victim on March 15, 2020. On March 16, 2020, the defendant is alleged to have ‘appeared at the internal affairs unit and asked who was investigating the complaints.’”
“It is not alleged that the defendant had any contact with the victim following March 15, 2020,” Bruntrager wrote. “Therefore, on March 16, 2021, when charges were filed under the above styled case, the Statute of Limitations had expired, and this court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.”
