IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST.

LOUIS
STATE OF MISSOURI

STATE OF MISSOURI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Cause No. 2122-CR00515
vs. )
)
JATONYA CLAYBORN-MULDROW ) Division: 25
)
Defendants. )

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE CIRCUIT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

COMES NOW the Defendant, by and through the undersigned counsel Peter O.

Bruntrager, and respectfully requests this Court enter an order disqualifying the Circuit Attorney’s

Office as representatives of the State for this matter by reason that there exists an incurable conflict

of interest, and submits the following:

1. The defendant has been an employee of the Saint Louis Metropolitan Police

Department for over 22 years.

2. The defendant was the lead detective for a criminal investigation leading to the

charges filed under Cause Number 1922-CR01819, wherein the elected Circuit Attorney,

Kimberly Gardner and her administration were the subject of the investigation. The Defendant is

listed as a witness on the Indictment filed on June 14, 2019. See Exhibit 1.

3. This Court previously determined that a conflict of interest existed between the

prosecution of Cause Number 1922-CR01819 and the Circuit Attorney’s Office such that a special

prosecutor was appointed in that matter.

4. The defendant completed the police report for the investigation which led to the

charges in Cause Number 1922-CR01819 on March 12, 2020.

 5. The defendant was subsequently placed on administrative duty on March 17, 2020

within the Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department for the underlying facts leading to the

present charges.

6. Counsel for the defense provided to the Saint Louis Metropolitan Police

Department reason for the existing conflict of interest with the Circuit Attorney’s Office on August

7, 2020, prior to the department referring charges to the Circuit Attorney’s Office. No response

was received. See Exhibit 2.

7. Counsel for the defendant subsequently provided to the Circuit Attorney’s Office

the same reasons for the existing conflict of interest on November 30, 2020 after the Saint Louis

Metropolitan Police Department notified Defendant that charges had been referred to the Circuit

Attorney’s Office. No response was received. See Exhibit 3.

8. The Defendant is a central witness to the ongoing prosecution of Circuit Attorney

Gardner’s administration under 1922-CR01819. That matter is currently pending in the Circuit

Court of the City of Saint Louis as it is being prepared for trial.

9. Kimberly Gardner is aware of the Defendant’s role in the investigation regarding

the elected Circuit Attorney and her investigation. Notably, Ms. Gardner has had direct email

contact with the Defendant. See Exhibit 4. Additionally, Ms. Gardner specifically mentions the

Defendant in the Circuit Attorney’s Petition for Writ of Prohibition filed in the Missouri Supreme

Court on May 16, 2019 under Cause Number SC97893. See Exhibit 5. Finally, the Defendant

submitted a sworn affidavit while the matter was pending in the Court of Appeals under Cause

Number ED107828. See Exhibit 6.

 10. RSMo § 56.110 states, in part, “[i]f the prosecuting attorney and assistant

prosecuting attorney be interested …, the court having criminal jurisdiction may appoint some

other attorney to prosecute … the cause.”

11. Further, “[t]he courts have not only the duty to dispense justice, but the equally

important duty to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.” State ex rel Horn v. Ray, 325

S.W.3d 500, 511 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). This Court “has the inherent power to do what is necessary

for the administration of justice, including disqualifying an attorney where a conflict of interest

clearly calls into question the fair or efficient administration of justice.”

12. A conflict of interest exists “wherever the circumstances of a case evidence a

reasonable possibility that the prosecutor’s office may not exercise its discretionary function in an

evenhanded way.” 63C Am.Jur.2d, Prosecuting Attorneys § 26. Moreover, the prosecuting

attorney must avoid even “the appearance of impropriety.” State v. Boyd, 560 S.W.2d 296, 297

(Mo. App. W.D. 1977). Any doubts must be resolved by this Court in favor of disqualification.

State ex. rel. Winkler v. Goldman, 485 S.W.3d 783 (MO. App. E.D. 2016)

13. 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. 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.

WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully requests make an order that there exists a conflict of

interest between the prosecution of the above matter and the Circuit Attorney’s Office and dismiss

the action, or, in the alternative appoint a special prosecutor pursuant to RSMo § 56.110.
BRUNTRAGER & BILLINGS, P.C.

/s/ Peter O. Bruntrager

Peter O. Bruntrager, #67974
Attorney for Plaintiff
225 S. Meramec Ave., Suite 1200
Clayton, MO 63105
(314) 646-0066
(314) 646-0065 Fax