Kansas City Star files motion to make ruling in Greitens custody case open to the public
The Kansas City Star asked a judge Tuesday to unseal a court record showing how the judge ruled in a custody dispute between former governor Eric Greitens and his ex-wife Sheena Greitens.
The motion, filed in Boone County Circuit Court, comes after a judge ruled on Sheena Greitens’ request to move the couple’s custody dispute to Texas, where she moved in 2020. She claimed Eric Greitens’ status as the former governor of Missouri creates an “intimidating environment” for her as she battles over the couple’s custody agreement.
The case attracted national attention after Sheena Greitens filed sworn testimony claiming Eric Greitens had physically and emotionally abused their family, a claim Eric Greitens immediately refuted and claimed was an attempt to undermine his campaign for U.S. Senate
When a Kansas City Star reporter went to the Boone County Clerk’s office to get a copy of the judgment, he was told it was sealed with a level six security designation — a classification typically reserved for grand jury indictments and other sensitive records.
“The court’s judgment is the ultimate ruling,” said Bernie Rhodes, the Kansas City Star’s attorney. “And the idea that the public is not entitled to know the basis of the ruling is anathema to self government.”
In his filing, Rhodes argued that the former Missouri governor and first lady, as high-profile Missourians, were being given different treatment than all other Missourians, for whom the records would typically get a level one security designation.
“An ordinary person doesn’t get their judgment sealed,” Rhodes said. “If I want to see how the property was split, when my neighbor got divorced, I can go on to CaseNet or go down to the courthouse and I can learn that. Why are these two people, who proclaim themselves to be high profile public figures, entitled to a different standard? That just seems wrong in this country.”
The case was a major focus during the Republican primary campaign in which Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt defeated Greitens and other contenders.
A political group focused on preventing Greitens from winning the party’s nomination aired ads on television detailing some of the allegations his ex-wife made in her sworn testimony. After the former governor put out a video saying he was hunting people who he deemed insufficiently conservative, Sheena Greitens’ attorney used the video as an exhibit in the case.
In his motion, Rhodes argued that Missouri voters — who either voted for Greitens despite the allegations or who potentially voted against him because of the allegations — had a right to any information that the judgment may reveal about the custody battle and how the judge handled Sheena Greitens’ allegations.
It may also reveal what Greitens’ legal team was able to back up his claim that her sworn testimony was part of a coordinated political attack — a claim his campaign was unable to back up — given the court gave his lawyers permission to obtain Sheena Greitens’ cell phone records.
“It is irrelevant that these allegations may be ‘embarrassing,’” Rhodes wrote in the motion. “much of what occurs in Missouri courts is the result of embarrassing behavior. What is important is the continued protection of the ‘paramount public interest in a free flow of information to the people’ concerning candidates for public office.”
