IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SAINT LOUIS COUNTY E STATE OF MISSOURI & STATE OF MISSOURI, ) 5 ) 9 Plaintiff, ) 5 } Cause No. 16SL-CRO7S13-01 2 v ) & ) DIVISION 14 g ‘TRENTON FORSTER, ) ) Defendant. ) 3 Motion for judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, a new trial £ Trenton Forster, by and through counsel, and pursuant to Mo. Sup. Ct. R 29.11 and 27.07 (West 2018) files with the court this motion for judgments of acquittal on all counts or, in the alternative, a new trial. This motion contains a list ofall of the errors in the jury trial and preserves these issues for appellate review. 1. The trial court erred when it denied the defense's motion for acquittal with regard to all counts at the close of the state’s evidence. Defense counsel filed a written motion with the court which was denied, The motion set forth the following objections: the state failed to prove the elements of the crime alleged in the information/indictment; the evidence failed to establish the ted by the defendant and that the defendant possessed the requisite mental state; accepting as true all of compus delicti; the evidence failed to establish that the alleged offense, any, was comt the evidence, whether circumstantial or direct, together with all favorable inferences drawn therefrom, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding of guilt; the evidence was in such conflict in material respects that it failed to establish the guilt of the defendant of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt; the information/indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the State of Missouri; the state failed to establish by proof which comes up to the requirements for submission to the jury in a criminal case that the defendant committed the alleged offenses with the requisite mental state, Denial of this motion violated Mr. Forster’s rights to due process, a fair trial, equal protection and to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. Const., amends. IV, V, VI, VIII, XIV; Mo. Const., art. I, sees. 2, 10, 15, 18(a), 19, 20, 21, 22.2. The trial court erred when it denied the defense's motion for acquittal with regard to all counts at the close of all of the evidence. Defense counsel filed a written motion with the court which was denied. The motion set forth the following objections: the state failed to prove the elements of the crime alleged in the information/indictment; the evidence failed to establish the corpus delicti; the evidence failed to establish that the alleged offense, if any, was committed by the defendant and that the defendant possessed the requisite mental state; accepting as true all of the evidence, whether circumstantial or direct, together with all favorable inferences drawn therefrom, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding of guilt; the evidence was in such conflict in material respects that it failed to establish the guilt of the defendant of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt; the information/indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the State of Missouri; the state failed to establish by proof which comes up to the requirements for submission to the jury in a criminal case that the defendant committed the alleged offenses with the requisite mental state. Denial of this motion violated Mr. Forster’s rights to due process, a fair trial, equal protection and to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. Const., amends. IV, V, VI, VIII, XIV; Mo. Const., art, I, secs. 2, 10, 15, 18(a), 19, 20, 21, 22. 3. The trial court erred when it denied defense counsel’s objection to the sequestration of Trenton Forster’s family members who wanted to watch the trial and who were also to be called as fact witnesses during the guilt phase of the trial. These witnesses were: William Forster, Crystal Forster, Cindy Soest, Austin Soest, Brandon Forster, Christina Forster and Angela Seats. ‘The sequestration occurred in the context of the widow of the deceased officer, Elizabeth Snyder, being allowed to testify and also watch the trial, ‘The state proffered the reason that she only ‘watched the trial following her testimony; however, her “testimony” was irrelevant as there was no dispute that Officer Snyder was the decedent in this case (see also infra pata. 4). Trenton Forster’s family should have been afforded the same rights to be present during the trial through operation of the due process clause and equal protection clauses as applied to the victim rights section of the Missouri Bill of Rights (Mo, Const., Art. 1, sec. 32). U.S. Const., amends, V, VI, XIV; Mo. Const., Art. I, secs. 2, 10 18(a).. 4 hye) 1-92) henge Wd bro - 6K4. ‘The trial court erred when it allowed, over defense counsel objection, Elizabeth Snyder to testify. Elizabeth Snyder is the widow of the victim in counts | and 2, Officer Blake Snyder. In her testimony, she provided family background and “identified” Officer Snyder as the decedent in counts | and 2. Because there was no dispute that Officer Snyder was the decedent, her testimony was not probative of any issue in the case, Her testimony was more prejudicial than probative, Admission of her testimony violated Mr. Forster's rights to due process, a fair trial and equal protection of law. U.S, Const., amends. V, VI, XIV; Mo. Const., Art. I, secs. 2, 10 18). 5. The trial court erred when it allowed a live video feed of the trial proceedings to be broadcast from the trial courtroom on the 4® floor to an auxiliary courtroom on the second floor of the courthouse, The trial court permitted this arrangement due to requests made to the 21% Judicial Circuit's public relations officer by the media and the St, Louis County Police. While the trial court believed that allowing the video feed would preserve due process protections for the defendant to have a fair trial, in fact, the opposite occurred. While the courtroom where the trial took place did not have uniformed police officers inside the courtroom as the trial progressed, uniformed police officers congregated in the hallway outside the courtroom. The congregation of officers most likely intimidated jurors as they exited the elevators to go to the jury room before trial and in particular, before closing arguments. In fact, on the day of the closing arguments, police officers lined the hallway outside the courtroom. See photograph. reproduced below from hitps://www.stItoday.com/news/local/photos-closing-arguments-begin- in-policeman-blake-snyder-killing/collection_ead88463-1410-5001-a049-5 1673 1d11£94.html#12 (accessed February 15, 2019). eTIS