s a result, the panel disciplined Gardner by issuing a public reprimand on her law license.
However, the grand jury members from Tisaby’s perjury and evidence tampering indictment argued Gardner should have suffered more severe consequences. In a letter sent to the presiding judge in Greitens’ case signed, “Seven Grand Jurors,” they cited Gardner’s “calculate deceit and/or outright incompetence” as a reason for imposing harsher sanctions.
The jurors said:
Our work exposed us to activity and behaviors in the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s office that we considered disturbing and certainly unethical. What we observed was not inadvertent nor inconsequential but was calculated deceit and/or outright incompetence; neither of which is acceptable behavior for a person holding this public office.
The jurors further argued that Gardner’s “disregard for the law” as a public official is “reprehensible.”
The jurors continued:
Our assignment as jurors was to investigate the indicted but our efforts revealed Ms. Gardner’s illegal prosecutorial misconduct to the point that we believed her actions were likely indictable as well. The fact that an ethics review was pending suggested gave us hope that Ms. Gardner would indeed face severe and appropriate consequences.