I have no idea how US courts work. Can whatever it is that's currently happening end in the reporter "winning" and possibly walking away with some compensation?
There is malicious prosecution, which allows a defendant to sue the plaintiff for knowingly prosecuting even though they knew (or reasonably suspected) they were wrong or did so with ill intent.
Typically, this can only be done after prevailing in court as I understand it and the bar for success is quite high.
The prosecutor isn't going to initiate this case (no matter how much the governor says so) because they know they will lose and in losing, embarass the state even worse (since during discovery it will come out that the people who let the error happen in the first place were incompetent).
STL covered its tracks perfectly on this one; if they did lose, it would be a token loss.
Yes[0]. It's unlikely to ever get that far though -
95% of cases settle pre-trial [1] because this kind of stuff is all fun and games until someone has to put their words on the line. Especially when you're the governor and big public losses like these weigh heavily in voters' minds.
We're talking criminal prosecution here, though -- the only pre-trial settlement is a plea bargain or a dropped prosecution, neither of which are likely if the prosecutor really takes this dog to trial. The next steps are going to hinge on whether the Missouri Highway Patrol is a competent and relatively non-political entity, since they just returned their investigation to the prosecutor's office.
Now, even if a jury convicts this is unlikely to stand on appeal just given the bare facts as we know them, but the state can definitely drag the reporter through jail, trial, and possible imprisonment as an example of what happens to anyone the governor takes a dislike to.
Typically, this can only be done after prevailing in court as I understand it and the bar for success is quite high.