>> Announcer: DONNYBROOK IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE MEMBERS OF NINE PBS.

>>> WELL, IT'S APRIL FOOL'S DAY, BUT YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO TELL FROM THE SERIOUS TENOR OF THE DISCUSSION WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE HERE ON DONNYBROOK.

THANKS A LOT FOR JOINING US.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE A WONDERFUL PROGRAM COMING YOUR WAY WITH THE BEST GROUP OF PANELISTS IN THE WESTERN WORLD, STARTING WITH THE NEWS DIRECTOR FOR THE BIG 550 KTRS AND THE COHOST OF THE JENNIFER AND WENDY SHOW, WENDY WIESE.

ALONG WITH SOME GUY WHO WRITES FOR A LOCAL NEWSPAPER AND IS WEARING A CUBS HAT, MR. BILL McCLELLAN.

>> JUST A MILD MANNERED REPORTER, CHARLIE, FOR A GREAT METROPOLITAN NEWSPAPER.

>> AND WE WELCOME RAY HARTMANN FROM THE BIG 550, RAWSTORY.COM, THE RIVERFRONT TIMES.

HELLO, RAY.

AND WITH THE CORRECT HAT, HE GOES TO THE FRONT OF THE CLASS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MR. ALVIN REID ON THIS OPENING DAY FROM THE ST. LOUIS AMERICAN, 97.1 AND 590 AND EVERYWHERE ELSE AND I ONLY MENTION THAT, BILL McCLELLAN, BECAUSE YOU HAD A WONDERFUL COLUMN ON SUNDAY WHERE YOU REFERENCED A GUEST OF NEXT UP HERE ON DONNYBROOK AND YOU SAID SHE HAD APPEARED ON A LOCAL PBS SHOW AND I SAID, COULDN'T HE HAVE MENTIONED DONNYBROOK?

BUT WE ENJOYED THE COLUMN NONETHELESS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU'RE WEARING ON TOP OF YOUR HEAD.

>> THANK YOU, CHARLIE.

>> ALSO, ON NEXT UP, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT ROBERT PATRICK AND CHRISTINE BYERS, MR. PATRICK WITH THE POST-DISPATCH AND MS. BYERS WITH 5 ON YOUR SIDE AND WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THE BIG TRIAL IN ST. LOUIS THIS WEEK THAT RESULTED IN NO CONVICTION FOR THREE WHITE ST. LOUIS POLICE OFFICERS ACCUSED OF BEATING AN AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEAGUE WHO WAS UNDER COVER AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT BEFORE THE HOUR HOSS UP.

FIRST WE'LL START WITH YOU, BILL, THE MAYORAL DEBATE TUESDAY NIGHT ON NINE PBS AND WE HAD CARA SPENCER, THE ALDERMAN, AGAINST THE TREASURER OF ST. LOUIS, TISHAURA JONES.

YOUR IMPREPTION OF THIS, THE FINAL DEBATE BEFORE TUESDAY'S ELECTION FOR THE MAYOR OF ST. LOUIS?

>> I THOUGHT CARA SPENCER HAS A STRONGER DEBATE THAN SHE HAD -- THAN THE FIRST DEBATE.

I THOUGHT SHE DID BETTER ON THIS ONE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S QUITE ENOUGH.

I THINK THAT TISHAURA JONES HAS ENOUGH EXPERIENCE AND, YOU KNOW, HER STRENGTHS OF KNOWING EVERYBODY IN THE REGION AND NATIONALLY, I THINK TISHAURA JONES WILL WIN.

BUT I THOUGHT ON THIS PARTICULAR DEBATE, CARA SPENCER DID WELL AND THERE WAS ONE POINT WHEN TISHAURA JONES WAS POINTING OUT THAT CARA SPENCER HAS NO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE, AND I THOUGHT, MY GOSH, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE REPUBLICANS SAID ABOUT BARACK OBAMA.

AND IN MY MIND, I THOUGHT HE DID WELL.

BUT I DIDN'T THINK TISHAURA JONES MADE NOTICE MISSTEPS, SO I THINK SHE'LL WIN THE ELECTION.

>> I THOUGHT ONE OF THE HEADLINES WAS TEN TISHAURA WAS -- TISHAURA JONES WAS MAKING THE POINT ABOUT THE POLICE UNION, AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ST. LOUIS POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND THE ETHICAL SOCIETY OF POLICE.

AND WHEN SHE SAID IF THEY DON'T TRUST EACH OTHER, HOW CAN WE TRUST THEM, AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS A PRETTY PIVOTAL MOMENT, BUT I AGREE WITH YOU, BILL.

I THINK CARA HAD SOME GREAT MOMENTS WHEN SHE ADDRESSED THE SKEPTICISM BETWEEN EVERYBODY IN THE CITY AND I SUPPOSE ELSEWHERE, EVERYWHERE, BUT SHE SAID THAT SHE WANTS TO WORK TO BREAK DOWN THOSE BARRIERS AND NOT JUST USE -- NOT JUST USE WORDS TO BREAK DOWN THE BARRIERS.

I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY STRONG PERFORMANCE FROM BOTH, BUT WHEN TISHAURA SAID THAT WE CAN'T REFORM OUR WAY OUT OF THESE RACIAL ISSUES, WE HAVE TO TRANSFORM, SHE'S DEFINITELY WINNING THE POLITICAL BUTTON CONTEST IF THERE IS ONE IN THIS MAYORAL RACE.

>> I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, ONE PITHY MOMENT WAS -- AND I ALSO GOT THE SENSE THAT TISHAURA WASN'T GOING TO BRING THIS UP UNLESS CARA BROUGHT IT UP, BUT, YOU KNOW, CARA CALLED OUT TISHAURA ON NO BIG CONTRACTS IN REGARD TO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S $500 MILLION COMING OUR WAY VIA THE STIMULUS PACKAGE AND TISHAURA WAS QUICK TO SAY, LIKE, WELL, YOU WERE LATE, YOU KNOW, TURNING IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT, SO WE CAN'T TRUST YOU OVER, WHAT WAS IT, $2300, HOW CAN WE TRUST YOU WITH FIVE MILLION?

I THOUGHT THAT WAS ONE OF -- YOU KNOW, AN ATTORNEY NEVER ASKS A QUESTION THAT THEY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO ALREADY, SO SHE KIND OF FELL INTO THAT TRAP.

THEY STILL SOUND MORE ALIKE THAN THEY DO DIFFERENT.

I THINK CARA WOULD WIN -- OKAY?

-- IF YOU GOT TWO CHOICES AND THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME, BUT ONE CHOICE IS BLACK AND ONE CHOICE IS WHITE, WHAT DO WHITE PEOPLE DO?

IF WHITE PEOPLE COME OUT AND SAY THE WHITE ONE IS BETTER JUST BECAUSE SHE'S WHITE, THEN CARA WILL WIN THE ELECTION.

>> WELL, I THINK -- >> IT'S SORT OF LIKE THAT.

I THOUGHT ANOTHER STRONG POINT THAT CARA SPENCER MADE, THE ONLY POINTS SHE COULD REALLY MAKE BECAUSE THEIR POSITIONS SORE SIMILAR IS THAT IF YOU REALLY WANT CHANGE, I REPRESENT CHANGE BECAUSE I HAVE NO EXPERIENCE.

AND I THOUGHT, THAT'S AN INTERESTING -- >> YEAH, THAT IS A GOOD POINT.

>> AND I THINK THAT IT'S LIKE SO MANY DEBATES IN OUR TIME, WHAT YOU THINK GOING IN PROBABLY AFFECTS WHAT YOU -- HOW YOU VIEWED THE DEBATE.

AS ALVIN SAID, THEY'RE SO CLOSE ON THE ISSUES, BUT ALSO, I THINK IT'S A VALID POINT THAT THIS IS -- I SAID, BEEN SAYING THAT THE PEOPLE WHO DETERMINE THIS RACE ARE LIKELY GOING TO BE THE ONES WHO ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE, WHO ARE NOT THE NATURAL SUPPORTERS BECAUSE THEY AROUND -- A LOT OF THEM ARE GOING TO VOTE.

PEOPLE WHO WOULDN'T VOTE FOR EITHER ONE OF THEM ARE STILL GOING TO VOTE, AND THE QUESTION BECOMES WHO DO THEY VOTE FOR.

I THINK I'LL DISAGREE WITH MY FELLOW FOUNDER.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I PREDICT THAT CARA'S GOING TO WIN, BUT I CALL IT TOO CLOSE TO CALL.

TO LOOK AT THE FIRST RACE, THE FIRST, WHATEVER, SO-CALLED PRIMARY, WHATEVER IT WAS IN MARCH, I THINK WOULD BE A MISTAKE AND SAY, WELL, TISHAURA'S GOT A BIG LEAD.

I THINK IT DEPENDS, AS ALVIN SAYS, WHO COMES OUT AND WHO VOTES.

I WILL SAY THIS: I DON'T THINK CARA IS -- OF ALL THE WHITE POLITICIANS I KNOW, I DON'T THINK SHE WELCOMES THAT ROLE AS BEING THE WHITE ALTERNATIVE TO THE BLACK PROGRESSIVE BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY MORE -- >> BUT SHE HAD THAT ROLE, RAY.

SHE HAS -- >> NO, NO, SHE -- >> SHE'S WHITE AMONG BLACK DUSH.

>> SHE'S NOT CULTIVATING IT.

>> I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

I'M SAYING THAT -- BY THE WAY, I THINK BOTH OF THEM WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT OVER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION AND ARGUABLY THE ONE BEFORE THAT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT SHE SOUGHT OUT TO DO, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.

I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO COME DOWN TO BLACK VERSUS WHITE, I THINK, AND I WOULDN'T -- GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT HASN'T BEEN SMART TO BET AGAINST THE WHITE CANDIDATE.

>> I DON'T KNOW.

JUST LIKE, RAY, THIS IS LIKE WE RUN AWAY FROM RACE WHENEVER IT COMES UP, OKAY?

WE JUST -- WE RUN AWAY FROM IT, IT CAN'T BE THAT, IT CAN'T BE THAT.

WELL, SOMETIMES IT IS THAT.

MOST OF THE TIME, IT IS THAT.

SO SHE KNEW THAT THE DAY THAT IT CAME DOWN TO THOSE TWO AND SHE WAS TRYING TO TAKE OUT LEWIS REED AND THEY WERE GOING BACK AND FORTH AND SHE WON.

IT'S ABOUT RACE, SO -- >> HANG ON A SECOND, GUYS.

HANG ON.

THE POLLING THAT CAME OUT THIS WEEK FROM SHOW ME VICTORIES INDICATED THAT TISHAURA HOLDS HER OWN VERY WELL WITH WHITE PROGRESSIVES IN SOUTH ST. LOUIS, SO WHAT FOLLOWS -- WHAT POLLS ARE YOU REFERENCE THAN WHITES ARE ALL FOR CARA?

>> NO, WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU CANNOT SAY THAT RACE HAS NO FACTOR IN THIS RACE.

>> I DIDN'T SAY THAT AT ALL.

I THINK IT WILL COME DOWN TO RACE.

I SAID YOU HAVE A WHITE CANDIDATE WHO DOES NOT -- >> BUT YOU WERE SAYING SHE DOESN'T WANT TO BE IN THAT OR WHATEVER.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

THAT'S IGNORING WHAT THE REALITY IS.

>> BUT IF I WAS RUNNING -- >> NO, YOU GUYS ARE JUST -- >> I JUST DON'T THINK -- >> YOU'RE USING VERBAL SHORTHAND AND YOU'RE NOT LOOKING, THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO CANDIDATES.

ONE HAS BEEN THE TREASURER OF A MAJOR OFFICE.

SHE RAN THE PARKING METERS AND PARKING GARAGES.

SHE HAD MAJOR BOND ISSUES.

THE OTHER ONE TOOK ON SCOTTRADE CENTER ENTERPRISE, PUT HER WHOLE FAMILY'S NET WORTH ON THE LINE.

SHE WAS SUED BY THE POWERS THAT BE AND TOLD THAT SHE'D BE BANKRUPT IF SHE CONTINUED.

SHE STUCK HER NECK OUT.

THEY HAVE DISTINCT HISTORIES, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME AND IT DOESN'T COME DOWN TO BLACK AND WHITE.

I THINK THAT ANALYSIS IS DISAPPOINTING.

>> WELL, ST. LOUIS IS A REALLY DISAPPOINTING PLACE BECAUSE WE KEEP -- I KEEP HEARING THAT I'M BANAL OR WHATEVER YOU JUST SAID -- >> THEY ARE DISTINCT DIFFERENCES AND THEY HAD DIFFERENCES THE OTHER DAY WHEN THEY WERE DEBATING HERE ON NINE PBS.

>> I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS ALL THAT, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY, AS WE MIGHT DISCUSS LATER IN THE SHOW, THAT TO SAY RACE IS NOT A FACTOR IS RIDICULOUS.

>> I'M NOT SAYING THAT FOR SURE.

I'M SAYING -- >> OKAY, WELL -- >> -- JUST BECAUSE SHE'S A WHITE -- FIRST OF ALL T IT SOUNDS YOU SAID SHE COULDN'T RUN BECAUSE SHE'S WHITE.

>> DID I SAY THAT?

>> NO, BUT I'M JUST SAYING SHE'S IN THE RACE.

YOU GOT TWO PROGRESSIVES, I AGREE WITH CHARLIE, THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT PEOPLE, BUTHEY'RE BOTH SIMILAR IDEOLOGICALLY -- >> IN SOME WAYS.

>> ONE LAPS TO BE WHITE, ONE HAPPENS TO BE BLACK.

I THINK PEOPLE FROM EITHER RACE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CROSS THE LINE.

>> THEY WILL.

>> IT DEPENDS ON IN THE SOUTH SIDE COMES OUT HEAVILY AND THE NORTH SIDE DOES NOT, THEN CARA SPENCER HAS A CHANCE TO WIN.

>> REAL QUICK, IF THEY BOTH COME OUT HEAVILY, OKAY, LIKE THEY DID IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ALL RIGHT?

AND CARA SPENCER WINS, WHO VOTED FOR CARA SPENCER AND WHY?

AND THAT WILL TELL THE STORY OF WHAT ST. LOUIS, THIS REGION, AND THIS STATE IS ABOUT.

WHY DOES EVERYBODY RUN AWAY FROM THAT?

I JUST DON'T GET IT.

>> OKAY, LET'S RUN AWAY FROM THE TOPIC JUST BRIEFLY BECAUSE WE HAVE OTHER TOPICS, TEAMMATES, INCLUDING A COMMENT THAT TISHAURA JONES MADE, WENDY WIESE THAT, IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE, MAYBE A GOOD THING TO HAVE AN EARNINGS TAX WHICH THE CITY NOW HAS ON ALL WORKERS AND RESIDENTS THERE, ONE PERCENT AS WE ALL KNOW, FOR THE COUNTY, FOR ST. LOUIS COUNTY, AND IN FACT, IN A STORY PUBLISH THIS WEEK, MIKE WOLFE, FRIEND OF THE SHOW, FORMER GUEST OF OURS ON NEXT UP, SAID IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING EVEN THOUGH IT'S KIND OF A REACH.

I THINK IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT IF YOU GET THE BOARD OF FREE HOLDERS TOGETHER, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WE COULDN'T DO LAST YEAR FOR SOME REASON, COULDN'T ASSEMBLY A TEAM IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, BUT I SAID YOU GET A BOARD OF FREEHOLDERS, A GROUP THAT WOULD REVISE THE GOVERNMENT, MAYBE YOU'LL HAVE AN EARNINGS TAX.

I DON'T EVER SEE THAT HAPPENING.

HOW ABOUT YOU, WENDY?

>> I THINK WHAT WAS FUNNY WAS SAM PAGE, WHO VERY QUICKLY ENDORSED THE CAMPAIGN OF TISHAURA JONES, VERY QUICKLY SHOT THIS IDEA DOWN IN FLAMES.

HE SAID NO, NO, NONSTARTER.

MIKE WOLFE, FRIEND OF THE SHOW, A FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HERE IN MISSOURI, HE SEEMS TO GIVE IT A VERY SLIM CHANCE, AN AS YOU SAID, IN TERMS OF THE BOARD OF FREE HOLDERS AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD EVER BE SEATED IN THE CITY, THE ONES THAT WERE SEATED IN THE COUNTY.

BUT TISHAURA'S POINT IS THAT SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, THAT YOU HAVE A THIRD OF OUR REVENUE TIED UP IN THE EARNINGS TAX AND THAT THAT IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN HER WORDS.

SO OTHER ALTERNATIVES HAVE TO BE DISCUSSED AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE IDEAS UNDER DISCUSSION, I SUPPOSE.

>> I LIKE THE FACT THAT TISHAURA BROUGHT IT UP, PERSONALLY, BUT I ALSO -- I WOULD SAY IT'S EXTREMELY -- I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT EXTREMELY UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN.

AND -- THE ONE THING IS IF I COULD -- I THINK BOTH THE CITY AND COUNTY HAVE A VERY LOGICAL BASIS FOR HAVING EARNINGS TAXES, BUT NOT ON THEIR OWN CITIZENS.

I'VE NEVER QUITE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CITY WHY THE EARNINGS TAX SHOULD BE PAID BY SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN THE CITY.

THE THEORY BEHIND AN EARNINGS TAX, WHICH IS SOLID, IS THAT YOU TAX PEOPLE WHO DON'T PAY TAXES TO YOUR JURISDICTION AND I'M THINKING IN THIS CASE -- IN THE CASE OF CITY AND COUNTY, THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN THE ST. LOUIS REGION LIVING OUTSIDE OF THOSE TWO COMBINED THAN INSIDE.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE.

I THINK IT'S LIKE 46 OR 47% OF THE REGION WHERE IT USED TO BE 80 OR 85% LIVE IN THE CITY AND COUNTY.

I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE FOR PEOPLE WHO COME TO WORK AND LEAVE, TO PAY THEIR SHARE FOR FIRE AND POLICE AND SO FORTH THROUGH AN EARNINGS TAX, AND IT'S A PERFECTLY LOGICAL THING.

BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN ST. LOUIS COUNTY BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO -- NO ONE WANTS TO ADVOCATE FOR A NEW TAX.

>> AND I DON'T THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE EARNINGS TAXES.

I THINK -- I DON'T THINK ANYBODY LIKES TAXES IN GENERAL, BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE SEEN GOOD EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE MOVED OUT OF THE CITY BECAUSE OF THE EARNINGS TAX.

TOM JACOBSON AT U.S. BANK AND, YOU KNOW, I CAN RECALL, WENDY BUSINESS WHEN JIM DORSEY WAS LURING US TO THE COUNTY.

THE FIRST THING HE SAID BACK IN 1996 WAS, HEY, YOU WON'T HAVE TO PAY THE CITY'S EARNINGS TAX.

YOU KNOW THAT CONVERSATION IS GOING ON A LOT.

>> BUT TISHAURA SAYS THAT WAS A FALLACY.

SHE SAID THAT IS A FALLACY.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE.

>> YOU DON'T THINK -- >> I HATE TO SEE YOU USE JACOBSON AS SOME KIND OF A MODEL.

I THOUGHT WHAT HE DID, YOU KNOW, HE SOLD THE BANK AND GOT A BIG LUMP SUM WHEN HE SOLD IT, AND RATHER THAN PAY HIS ONE PERCENT, WHICH WAS GOING TO BE CONSIDERABLE, LIKE $70,000 OR SOMETHING, HE MOVED TO CLAYTON TO AVOID PAYING THE TAX, AND I THOUGHT AT THE TIME IT WAS A CHINTZY THING TO DO AND WHAT HE COULD HAVE SAID IS JUST SAID TO THE MILWAUKEE BUYING HIS BANK, AS I REMEMBER, YOU KNOW, I WANT ANOTHER 70 GRAND, AND THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT TO HIM.

SO I THOUGHT -- I HATE TO SEE SOMEBODY WHO WAS THAT GREEDY HELD UP AS AN EXAMPLE.

>> AND I STILL DON'T SEE HOW, IF YOU AN EARNINGS TAX IN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY, THAT THAT JUST COULDN'T REMOVE US FROM THE BEAUTY PAGEANT ALTOGETHER FOR SOME COMPANIES.

>> WELL, I THINK MOST PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY, EVEN THOSE OF US WHO, YOU KNOW, WORKED IN THE CITY AND CAME BACK OUT, EITHER DON'T CARE AT ALL OR MAYBE KINDA CARE BECAUSE YOU JUST DIDN'T MAKE THAT KIND OF MONEY, BUT NOW YOU START PUTTING A ONE PERCENT EARNINGS ON THE TAX ON THE COUNTY, WHAT YOU'VE DONE IS TAKEN ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO HAD NO OPINION ON IT AND NOW THEY'RE ANTI-EARNINGS TAX ANYWHERE.

BAD MOVE.

ST. LOUIS, LEAVE THE COUNTY ALONE AND DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, BUT NOW YOU GOT A LOT OF COUNTY PEOPLE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THEIR LIFE EVEN KNOW WHAT A CITY EARNINGS TAX IS, SO -- >> WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT.

IT'S EXPECTED TO PASS ON THE 6th, RIGHT?

>> IT'S GOING TO PASS ON THE 6th.

IT IS GOING TO PASS AND IN KANSAS CITY.

REX SINQUEFIELD EVERY FIVE YEARS, THEY GOT TO REAFFIRM SOMETHING THAT TO ME WAS TERRIBLE.

THEY SHOULD HAVE NEVER TOLD OTHER CITIES AROUND THE STATE THEY COULDN'T HAVE IT.

I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT TALK -- I HAD MIKE WOLFE ON THE SHOW AND WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THIS.

I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT THE MEASURE WAS -- I KNOW THE MEASURE THE STATE PASSED PROHIBITS ANY OTHER CITY FROM HAVING AN EARNINGS TAX, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN HAVE ONE, BUT -- >> THAT'S INTERESTING.

>> -- BACK TO THE CITY -- THE IDEA OF -- AND I MOVED THE RIVERFRONT TIMES IN '95 FOR THE CITY TO THE COUNTY AND I REMEMBER PEOPLE THINKING IT WAS THAT AND IT REALLY WASN'T.

IT NEVER CAME UP.

WHEN WE MOVED FROM THE SHELL BUILDING DOWNTOWN TO THE TIVOLI, I'LL SAY THIS.

A WHOLE LOT OF OUR EMPLOYEES, PROBABLY TWO-THIRDS OF THEM WERE IN THE CITY ANYWAY, SO IT DIDN'T AFFECT US.

>> BUT LET ME SAY SOMETHING.

RIGHT NOW A LOT OF COMPANIES ARE GETTING THEIR EARNINGS TAXES ABATED BY THE CITY AND IN FACT, THE NGA AS A CONDITION OF MOVING TO NORTH ST. LOUIS DEMANDED THAT ITS EARNINGS TAX INTO INTO THE PROPERTY.

I MEAN, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T EVEN WANT AN EARNINGS TAX IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS.

>> I THINK IT'S A GOOD TAX AND I THINK -- >> ALL RIGHT, RAY, GOOD POINTS, BUT WE GOT TO MOVE ALONG.

IN FACT, RAY MAYBE I'LL STICK WITH YOU ON THIS NEXT TOPIC IF YOU DON'T MIND.

YOU DON'T MIND SPEAKING A LITTLE EXTRA ON THE SHOW, DO YOU?

ERIC SCHMITT, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MISSOURI, IS GOING TO COURT BECAUSE THE RECENT STIMULUS BILL BY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WILL BRING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE STATE OF MISSOURI AND, YOU KNOW, TRILLIONS TO THE COUNTRY, BUT ONE PROVISO IS THE STATES CANNOT LOWER THEIR TAXES WHILE THEY'RE RECEIVING THIS LARGESSE FROM UNCLE SAM.

SO YOU CAN'T TAKE THE MONEY FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., AND LOWER TAXES.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT FEES, BUT TAXES ARE SPECIFIED.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT SCHMITT?

HE THINKS IT'S COERCION AND I KNOW FOR A LONG TIME, RAY, YOU HAVE ENDORSED LOCAL CONTROL WHERE PEOPLE CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE KNOW POLICY BETTER THAN PEOPLE FAR AWAY, RIGHT?

SO YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ERIC SCHMITT?

>> I WOULD NOT.

I WANT TO SAY THAT 99% OF WHAT ERIC SCHMITT DOES NOW IS POLITICAL AND AIMED AT THE BASE.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S 100%.

I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING HE DOES AT THIS POINT IN HIS POLITICAL LIFE THAT ISN'T AIMED AT THE REPUBLICAN SENATE BASE FOR ROY BLUNT'S SEAT, BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, HE'S JUST COMPLETELY -- HE'S WRONG ON THIS.

THIS IS COVID MONEY THAT'S DESIGNED FOR COVID AND IT IS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE TO SAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO USE THIS INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE STATED PURPOSES AND NOT TO PUT IN YOUR POCKET.

SO I'M FINE WITH -- I MEAN, I'M FINE WITH THE REGULATION THAT IT BE USED FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND FOR COVID.

HE COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG IN MY OPINION ON ANYTHING.

>> I THINK IT'S IMMORAL.

THIS IS MONEY THAT WE, THE TAXPAYERS, ARE GIVING AND HAPPILY GIVING TO HELP PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY COVID.

I'M TALKING ABOUT BARTENDERS AND WAITRESSES, AND I TALKED TO A GUY WHO WORKED IN A HOTEL DOWNTOWN WHO LOST HIS JOB, THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY, AND THIS MONEY IS SUPPOSED TO BE GOING TO HELP PEOPLE LIKE THAT.

AND YOU SAY RATHER THAN DO THAT, I'M GOING TO HAVE A TAX BREAK, YOU'RE HELPING PEOPLE, OFTEN THE VERY RICH, AND PEOPLE WHO DON'T NEED THE HELP.

I MEAN, THIS MONEY -- IT'S LIKE IF YOU HAD A NEPHEW WHO GOT IN APARTMENT AND DIDN'T HAVE FURNITURE AND YOU SAID, HERE'S A THOUSAND DOLLARS, YOU KNOW, GO BUY SOME USED FURNITURE AND YOU SAID, WHAT DID YOU GET?

AND HE SAID I WENT TO CHICAGO AND HAD A BLAST.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE MONEY WAS FOR.

I MEAN, THERE'S JUST -- ERIC SCHMITT SHOULD BE A LITTLE ASHAMED OF HIMSELF.

>> I DON'T THINK HE IS, AND I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY -- THIS IS JUST THE WAY I SEE IT, SO START THROWING EGGS IN A MOMENT.

THIS IS A STATE'S RIGHTS ISSUE AND HE'S A STATE'S RIGHTS CANDIDATE, SENATOR SCHMITT IS, SO YEAH, THIS IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.

HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT RULED WITH THE STATES WHEN IT CAME TO THE ACA AND THE FACT THAT A LOT OF THAT MONEY WAS TIED UP WITH ALL SORTS OF FEDERAL CONSTRAINTS, AND SO I THINK HE'S RIGHT TO GET THIS IN TRIPLICATE OR DUPLICATE OR WHAT HAVE YOU FROM JAENT YELLEN WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT THE STATES ARE ABLE TO DO.

AS YOU SAID, THIS IS A GIFT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

WE ARE ALL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

WE'RE GIVING A GIFT TO OURSELVES, SO I DON'T THINK HE'S BEYOND -- I DON'T THINK HE'S BEYOND HIS RIGHTS AT ALL AS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND FUTURE U.S.

SENATOR TO GET THIS KIND OF THING CLEARLY DEFINED BY THE TREASURY SECRETARY.

>> THIS STATE HAS HAD -- BOY, I WISH WE COULD DO THAT OVER, SO THE LOTTERY, LEGALIZED GAMBLING COMES HERE AND IT IS FOR EDUCATION.

AND THEN IT GOES INTO THE GENERAL FUND AND AMAZINGLY, EDUCATION GETS THE SAME AMOUNT OR EVEN LESS THAN THEY USED TO GET.

OKAY.

THAT DEFIES THE INCOME COMING IN.

SO THUS, I'M THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND I FEEL LIKE, NO, YOU CAN'T LOWER TAXES BECAUSE THAT MEANS THE MONEY WE SENT TO YOUR STATE WILL NOT GO TO THE INTENDED PLACES.

IT'S VERY SIMPLE.

AND I THINK WE ALL REMEMBER, YOU KNOW, WWJD, IT'S STILL OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD JESUS DO.

REPUBLICANS, ALDERMEN, IT'S WWTD, WHAT WOULD TRUMP DO, A AVEN THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.

WHAT WOULD DONALD TRUMP DO.

WHAT WOULD DONALD TRUMP WANT ME TO DO.

MAYBE WE CAN THROW ANOTHER "W" IN THERE AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

IT'S IMMORAL LIKE BILL SAYS.

>> CHARLIE, I WOULD JUST SAY -- >> NO, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR WENDY THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE THROWING EGGS, BUT HE A STATE'S RIGHTS GUY WHEN HE LED THE CHARGE AMONG THE STATES TO SUE PENNSYLVANIA AND ALL THE OTHER BATTLEGROUND STATES SAYING THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE STATE'S RIGHTS TO RUN THEIR OWN ELECTION?

>> THAT WAS A BRIEF ANOMALY, RAY.

>> I'M JUST ASKING.

NO EGGS INVOLVED.

>> WAIT, HIS CAR RAN OFF THE ROAD AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TELL YOU WHY IT RAN OFF THE ROAD.

>> HE HAD A HOT ROD, OVERRIDING -- >> LET ME ASK YOU, ALVIN -- HAVE I GONE TO YOU, ALVIN, ON A TOPIC YET?

I DON'T THINK SO.

WHAT ABOUT MEDICAID EXPANSION?

I KNOW YOU'RE SHOCKED THAT REPUBLICANS AREN'T FUNDING IT RIGHT NOW, BUT DO YOU THINK WHEN THE SESSION ENDS IN MAY, REPUBLICANS WILL COMPLETE THIS YEAR'S SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WITHOUT FUNDING MEDICAID EXPANSION AFTER VOTERS LAST YEAR, 53% VOTED TO EXPAND IT?

>> WELL, I DOUBT THAT THIS WILL GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH ONLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF OUR DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATORS SAID, THIS IS JUST LIKE A CHILDISH FIT.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, BUT YOU'RE JUST BASICALLY SAYING WE DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY, SO IT WILL BE EVEN A BIG -- KIND OF A BIGGER LOSS TO THE STATE.

WHAT SENSE DOES THAT MAKE?

OKAY, HOUSE, YOU THREW YOUR FIT, AND SENATE.

DO YOUR JOB AND SAY, LIKE, THIS IS -- WE CAN LOSE -- WE CAN POSSIBLY LOSE MONEY OR WE CAN JUST ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY LOSE MONEY.

THERE'S NO ARGUMENT.

>> ALVIN, THERE IS.

I MEAN, THERE IS A PURPOSE.

IT'S CALLED POLITICAL THEATER.

IT'S NOT -- >> YEAH, TRUE.

>> IT IS A CHILDISH FIT, BUT IT'S POLITICAL THEATER.

I THINK -- AND YOU MENTIONED MIKE WOLFE.

I HAD HIM ON OUR SHOW, AND HE MADE THE POINT, AND I WOULD THINK HE WOULD KNOW, THAT THE STATE COURTS ARE VERY UNLIKELY TO ALLOW THE LEGISLATORS TO TRAM FELL A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CAN'T LEGISLATE -- CAN'T APPROPRIATE MONEY, BUT IT CAN DIRECT THE LEGISLATURE TO DO SOMETHING, AND THAT'S WHAT HE DID HERE.

SO MIKE SAYS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO -- THE REPUBLICANS ARE VERY UNLIKELY TO WIN IN COURT.

I THINK THAT THE SENATE WILL, BECAUSE PARSON HAD THIS IN HIS BUDGET ORIGINALLY, REMEMBER, HE ORIGINALLY HAD THE MEDICAID EXPANSION N I THINK YOU'LL SEE THE SENATE PUT IT BACK IN AND THEY'LL HAVE THE MINUTE OF -- >> TWO-MINUTE WARNING.

>> I HOPE THE SENATE DOESN'T PUT IT BACK IN.

I THINK THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD QUITE FIGHTING THIS.

I MEAN, IF THE REPUBLICANS -- THE RURAL REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST MEDICAID EXPANSION.

I MEAN, IT PASSED, AS CHARLIE SAID, WITH ONLY 53% AND MOST OF THAT CAME FROM THE URBAN AREAS AND WHO WILL IT HELP?

IT WILL SAVE THE RURAL HOSPITALS, AND IF THE RURAL PEOPLE AND THE RURAL REPUBLICANS WANT TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO LET OUR HOSPITAL S GO BANKRUPT, I SAY, OKAY, LET THEM DO IT.

THIS THEY WANT TO DRIVE TO ST. LOUIS, JUST BRING YOUR WALLET.

>> BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, BILL.

THEY'RE GOING TO GET CARES -- THE POINT IS, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, BUT IN THE REAL WORLD, THEY'RE GOING TO GET TAKEN CARE OF IN THE ST. LOUIS -- AND EVEN LIKE BJC HAS RURAL HOSPITALS, SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.

I THINK WE NEED TO EXPAND MEDICAID, I'M SORRY, BUT -- >> I DO, TOO, BUT IF THE PEOPLE SAY NO, LET THEM HAVE THEIR WISH.

>> IT HURTS EVERYBODY.

IT'S NOT JUST -- >> I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE NOT EXPANDING MEDICAID, WHICH IS -- >> THEY WILL.

>> YOU GET A TEN FOR ONE MATCH FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

YOU SPEND A DOLLAR, YOU GET TEN, BUT THEN DURING A PANDEMIC, BUT SPEAKING OF SHOWS, RAY YOU MENTIONED YOURS.

JEAN EVANS, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WAS ON ON MY SHOW, MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, KMOX, SHE SAID SHE'S BE SURPRISED, SHE'S NOT ALL THAT SURE THAT REPUBLICANS WON'T PASS THIS IN THE LONG RUN.

SO WHO'S TO SAY.

RAY, WHO DO YOU GOT ON TONIGHT?

WE GOT TEN SECONDS?

>> MYSTERY.

>> OH, MYSTERY GUEST, TO BE CONTINUED.

>> OH, I GOT -- WHO DO I HAVE ON TONIGHT?

>> YOU THINK ABOUT THAT WHILE I BACK DOWN -- >> SENATOR BRIAN WILLIAMS.

>> GOOD ENOUGH.

HERE'S WHAT WE'VE GOT COMING UP ON NEXT UP ON NINE PBS.

TWO OUTSTANDING REPORTERS, ROBERT PATRICK FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, CHRISTINE BYERS FROM KSDK, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TRIAL THIS WEEK IN FEDERAL COURT, THREE OFFICERS ACCUSED, THREE OFFICERS, NONE CONVICTED.

THAT'S NEXT.

>> Announcer: DONNYBROOK IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE MEMBERS OF NINE PBS.

>>> WELL, THANKS FOR JOINING US FOR NEXT UP.

IT'S GREAT TO HAVE YOU WITH US FOR THIS, THE SECOND HALF WHEN WE TALK TO PEOPLE WHO ARE LEADING THIS AREA -- RATHER, LEADING THE AREA IN DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES, AND TODAY WE WELCOME TWO JOURNALISTS WHO ARE TWO OF THE BEST ON THE BEAT IN THE GREATER ST. LOUIS AREA.

AND THEY WERE TWO WHO, GAVEL-TO-GAVEL, FOLLOWED THE COVERAGE OF THE THREE ST. LOUIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS, THREE WHITE OFFICERS WHO THIS WEEK WERE NOT CONVICTED AFTER BEING ACCUSED OF BEATING AND DEPRIVING OF CIVIL RIGHTS OF THEIR AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEAGUE.

AND SO WITH US TO TALK ABOUT THIS IMPORTANT CASE, FROM 5 ON YOUR SIDE, KSDK, WE HAVE CHRISTINE BYERS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME, CHARLIE.

>> THANKS FOR RETURNING TO OUR PROGRAM.

AND MAKING HIS INAUGURAL DEBUT, ROBERT PATRICK FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH.

ROBERT, THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME OUT OF YOUR SCHEDULE TO BE ON NEXT UP.

>> IT'S A PLEASURE.

>> MR. PATRICK, MAYBE WE'LL START WITH YOU.

I KNOW YOU INTERVIEWED ONE OF THE JURORS AFTER THE CASE.

I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE SURPRISED GIVEN ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT THE THREE POLICE OFFICERS BECAUSE OF A MISTRIAL, HUNG JURY OR ACQUITTALS, WERE NOT CONVICTED.

WHAT DO WE MAKE OF THIS?

WHAT HAPPENED?

WHAT DID THE JUROR TELL YOU?

>> WELL, I WAS ONLY ABLE TO REACH ONE JUROR, SO LET ME QUALIFY FIRST BY SAYING THAT, BUT HE WAS SAYING THERE JUST WASN'T ENOUGH FOR THEM.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW -- AND THAT MAYBE THE BANE OF PROSECUTORS EVERYWHERE.

WHAT THESE GUYS WANTED TO SEE WAS VIDEO FROM START TO FINISH OF THE BEATING OF LUTHER HALL SO THEY COULD FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHO DID WHAT AND THAT JUST DIDN'T EXIST.

BOTH SIDES SAID THERE WAS A GAP RANGING BETWEEN 20 SECONDS AND 40 SECONDS AND THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS THE BIG OBSTACLE FOR THE JURY.

ONE SIDE SAYING -- THEY WENT THROUGH THE PHOTOS.

THERE WAS A VIDEO AND THERE WERE PHOTOS AND THEY WENT THROUGH THE PHOTOS FRAME BY FRAME SAYING, AS YOU CAN SEE THIS PHOTO SHOWS THAT.

AND THE OTHER SIDE WOULD GET UP AND SAY, AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS PHOTO SHOWS SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

IT ALL CAME DOWN TO THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OR THE EVIDENCE THEY SAID THEY NEEDED AND DIDN'T HAVE.

>> CHRISTINE, WHAT WAS YOUR TAKE?

>> I MEAN, I THINK ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT THE PROSECUTION HAD ON THIS CASE WAS WITNESS AFTER WITNESS COMPLETELY SORT OF WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE WITNESS THAT TALKED -- JURORS WERE HEARING ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT STATEMENTS AND DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS FROM DIFFERENT OFFICERS.

ONE OF THE DAYS IN PARTICULAR THAT I THOUGHT WAS THE MOST HEATED INVOLVED RANDY HAYES WHO IS ONE OF THE OFFICERS WHO PLEADED GUILTY ALREADY IN THIS CASE AND HE'S AWAITING SENTENCING.

AND PROSECUTORS, YOU KNOW, THEY CROSS-EXAMINED HIM, DID THEIR DIRECT, BUT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WERE REALLY ABLE TO SORT OF PLANT A SEED OF DOUBT IN THE JURORS' MINDS BY POINTING OUT THAT HIS COOPERATION WITH THE PROSECUTION COULD GET HIM SOME LENIENCY IF THE PROSECUTION WERE TO WRITE TO THE JUDGE AND URGE THE JUDGE TO EXERCISE SOME LENIENCY IN THIS CASE.

SO I THINK THAT DEFINITELY CHIPPED AWAY AT HIS CREDIBILITY AND EVEN SOME OF THE STATEMENTS RANDY HAYES MADE, HE SAID HE SAW LUTHER HALL GET KICKED IN THE FACE AND LUTHER HALL TESTIFIED THAT HE DIDN'T REMEMBER BEING KICKED IN THE FACE, THAT HE JUST REMEMBERED GETTING STRUCK ALL OVER HIS BODY AND IN HIS WORDS, A FREE-FOR-ALL.

SO THERE WAS JUST A LOT OF INCONSISTENCY ALONG THE WAY WITH THE WITNESSES AS WELL.

>> WENDY.

>> WHICH OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMPOSITION OF THE JURY AND HOW THAT HAPPENED?

I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE CONFUSED ABOUT THE PROCESS THROUGH WHICH THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WERE ABLE TO COME UP WITH AN ALL-WHITE JURY IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS FOR THIS FEDERAL TRIAL.

>> WELL, I THINK FROM DAY ONE, THAT WAS A STICKING POINT OF CONTROVERSY BECAUSE AS WE WERE SITTING THERE WATCHING THE WHOLE PROCESS DEVELOP, YOU KNOW, JURORS, OF COURSE, ARE GIVEN NUMBERS AND THOSE NUMBERS ACTUALLY BECOME SIGNIFICANT AS THE POOL OF JURORS GETS SMALLER AND SMALLER.

AND SO IN THIS CASE, THERE WERE FOUR BLACK JURORS THAT MADE IT TO THE FINAL SELECTION PROCESS.

THREE BLACK WOMEN AND ONE BLACK MALE.

AND BASICALLY, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS MOVED TO STRIKE THREE OF THE FOUR BECAUSE THE FOURTH WAS IN THE POOL OF ALTERNATES.

HIS NUMBER WAS HIGHER THAN THE OTHERS, SO HE WAS STILL IN THE POOL OF ALTERNATES.

SO THEY MOVED TO STRIKE THE THREE BLACK WOMEN WHO COULD HAVE BEEN SEATED IN THAT FIRST 12 AND THE PROSECUTORS INVOKED WHAT'S CALLED A CHALLENGE THAT BASICALLY FORCES THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TO EXPLAIN THEIR RACE-NEUTRAL OR GENDER-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR STRIKING THESE CANDIDATES.

AND THEY GAVE THEIR REASONS.

THE JUDGE SAID TO THE PROSECUTION ON ONE CANDIDATE THAT HE DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE REASON THERE AND THAT CANDIDATE BASICALLY SAID SHE DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE LIVING NEXT TO OR NEAR ANYBODY THAT SHE WAS DECIDING A CASE FOR.

AND SO THE JUDGE SAID TO THE PROSECUTION, WHAT DO YOU WANT THE DEFENSE TO DO ABOUT THIS CHALLENGE AND THIS QUESTION HERE?

THE PROSECUTION SAID STRIKE A DIFFERENT JUROR.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS STRUCK A WHITE MALE WHO WAS IN THE POOL OF ALTERNATES, WHICH PUSHED THE FINAL BLACK FEMALE INTO THE POOL OF ALTERNATES BASED ON HER NUMBER.

BUT THERE WAS A TURN OF EVENTS ON TUESDAY.

ONE OF THE WHITE MALE JURORS WAS DISMISSED FROM THE JURY BY THE JUDGE FOR A PERSONAL EMERGENCY, SO THE BLACK WOMAN ALLOWED TO THEN BE PART OF THE SEATED JURY IN THE END.

>> AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT -- YOU KNOW, I'M NOT DEFENDING ANY OF THE STRIKES OR ANYTHING, ANY OF THE WAY THAT THAT WENT DOWN, BUT BECAUSE THE JURY IS DRAWN FROM THE WHOLE EASTERN HALF OF MISSOURI, IT'S NOT AS UNUSUAL TO HAVE THAT COMPOSITION AS IT WOULD BE IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS OR ST. LOUIS COUNTY.

AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK -- I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A MECHANISM BY WHICH YOU CAN MIX IT UP BETTER SO THAT THOSE -- YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE BLACK JURORS WERE SORT OF TOWARDS THE END ANYWAY, AND SO IF THEY WERE -- YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS A BETTER MIX, THEN MAYBE THOSE STRIKES WOULDN'T HAVE ELIMINATED ALL OF THEM, YOU KNOW, INITIALLY.

SO... >> BILL.

>> FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS FUN TO HAVE YOU GUYS ON.

THIS IS LIKE AN OLD NEWSROOM DISCUSSION AT THE POST-DISPATCH A FEW YEARS AGO.

BUT THE FEDERAL JURIES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN MORE SYMPATHETIC TO LAW ENFORCEMENT THAN, LIKE, THE CITY JURIES OR THE COUNTY JURIES AND WITH THIS CASE WHERE YOU HAD COPS ON TRIAL AND THE KEY WITNESS IS COPS, IT WAS VERY STRONG.

AND CHRISTINE, YOU ALLUDED TO IT A LITTLE BIT.

DID THE TWO PROSECUTION WITNESSES WHO WERE COPS, HAYES AND RANDY COLETA, DID THEY SEEM LIKE THEY WERE WILLING WITNESSES OR DID THEY SEEM RELUCTANT?

HOW COME THE JURORS COULDN'T BELIEVE TWO POLICE OFFICERS?

>> RANDY HAYES IS THE ONE WHO PLEADED GUILTY ALREADY ANSWER IS AWAITING SENTENCING.

THE OTHER OFFICER DIDN'T ACTUALLY TAKE THE STAND IN THIS TRIAL, BUT THERE WERE PLENTY OF OFFICES THAT DID.

IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION POINTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES TO THE JURY, HIS SEEN, THESE GUYS AND GALS DON'T WANT TO BE HERE.

THEY DON'T WANT TO BE TESTIFYING AGAINST THEIR FELLOW OFFICERS, BUT THEY'RE HERE TO DO THE RIGHT THING, TO TELL THE TRUTH, AND IN HER CLOSING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY, SHE ALSO POINTED OUT AND SAID TO THE JURY, HEY, LOOK, THIS IS NOT A PRO-POLICE OR ANTI-POLICE CASE.

SHE SAID DON'T GO DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE AT ONE POINT.

IT WAS DEFINITELY ON THE FOREFRONT OF THE PROSECUTION'S MIND TO STEER THAT JURY AWAY FROM THINKING ABOUT IT IN THOSE TERMS.

>> RAY?

>> I KNOW THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE COVERAGE, BUT TO ME, THE TOP LINE TAKEAWAY OF THIS STORY IS, ONCE AGAIN, THERE'S JUST NO JUSTICE FOR BLACK PEOPLE IN ST. LOUIS AND PARTICULARLY -- I CAN'T IMAGINE BLACK OFFICERS WANTING TO WORK IN A TOWN THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS AND IT'S NO HARM NO FOUL.

HAVING SAID THAT, DID YOU -- IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU SAW IN THIS TRIAL, IN ITS CONDUCT, THAT WOULD WORK AGAINST THAT?

YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED THE LACK OF EVIDENCE, BUT -- I GUESS MY QUESTION, WAS THE KIND OF RACIAL TENSION THAT WE ALL FEEL IN THAT COURTROOM OR IS THERE SOMETHING YOU CAN SAY THAT SOMEHOW GOES AGAINST THE, WHAT I THINK IS OBVIOUS NARRATIVE THAT IT'S JUST ONE MORE INJUSTICE AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE IN ST. LOUIS?

>> WELL, THE JUROR I TALKED TO IS WHITE, AND WHEN I ASKED HIM THAT QUESTION ABOUT, FROM THE BEGINNING, AS CHRISTINE SAID, RACE IS AN ISSUE IN THE JURY MAKEUP, RACE WAS AN ISSUE THROUGHOUT THIS CASE.

HE SAID HE DIDN'T ENTER INTO THE JURY DELIBERATIONS.

YOU KNOW, IT DIDN'T ENTER INTO THE JURY DELIBERATIONS FOR A WHITE MAN.

I THINK THERE WERE A LOT OF VERY UPSET PEOPLE, BOTH WATCHING THE TRIAL AND WHO WERE SORT OF WATCHING IT FROM AFAR.

THERE WERE A COUPLE OF CIVIL LAWYERS WHO REPRESENT A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE ARRESTED THAT NIGHT AND WERE ALREADY UPSET THAT THE FEDS WERE ONLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING POLICE OFFICERS ACCUSED OF BEATING A FELLOW POLICE OFFICER.

AND THEY'RE SAYING, WHAT ABOUT ALL THESE OTHER INCIDENTS?

WHAT ABOUT ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE ARRESTED AND SAY THE SAME THING HAPPENED TO THEM?

AND YET WHERE IS YOUR FEDERAL PROSECUTION?

THEY'RE SAYING THEY HAD BETTER EVIDENCE.

THEY'RE SAYING THEY'VE GOT CLEAR VIDEO WITH NAME TAGS AND EVERYTHING ELSE SHOWING THE SAME THING HAPPENING, AND YET, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS DOING NOTHING.

>> AND I WOULD ADD TO THAT POINT ALSO, THAT THERE WAS A MOMENT AT TRIAL WHERE LUTHER HALL'S PARTNER TOOK THE STAND AND HIS NAME IS OFFICER LUNEZ AND EASY WHITE.

HE WAS ALSO PART OF THIS UNDERCOVER OPERATION WHERE THEY WERE BOTH WORKING, DISGUISED AS PROTESTERS, DOCUMENTING PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ANY OTHER CRIMES THAT THEY WERE OBSERVING.

AND WHEN HE WAS ON THE STAND, HE DESCRIBED THE SITUATION WHERE HE WAS ALMOST ARRESTED AND HE SAID IT WAS BY BLACK OFFICERS THAT TRIED TO ARREST HIM.

AND HE DESCRIBED THE ARREST AS TEXTBOOK AND THAT IT WENT DOWN WITH RESPECT.

HE WAS NOT INJURED, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

AND IT WAS OBVIOUSLY IN DIRECT COMPARISON TO LUTHER HALL'S EXPERIENCE, HIS PARTNER WHO WAS BLACK AND WAS ARRESTED BY WHITE OFFICERS.

NOW, DEFENSE ATTORNEYS CAME BACK AT HIM AND SAID, WELL, YOU HAD A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE BECAUSE YOU CAME OUT, YOU IDENTIFIED -- YOU CAME OUT AND CLEARLY SHOWED YOUR HANDS AND, YOU KNOW, APPROACHED POLICE COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY THAN LUTHER HALL DID, AND SO THEY SORT OF CHIPPED AWAY AT HIM ON THE STAND ABOUT THAT ASPECT OF IT.

BUT NONETHELESS, IT WAS VERY INTERESTING TO HEAR HIS DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE, THAT SAME EXACT NIGHT.

>> ALVIN.

>> I'M KIND OF AT A LOSS FOR WORDS IN THAT -- BUT I'LL GO BACK TO SOMETHING BILL SAID.

I THINK YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS A GUEST, THERE WAS THIS REQUEST FOR DNA AND IF THERE WAS NO DNA, HOW CAN YOU PROVE IT?

YOU HAVE POLICE OFFICER SAYING -- THAT WERE LOOKING FORWARD TO BEATING UP A PROTESTER.

PROTESTER GETS BEATEN UP.

OTHER POLICE OFFICERS TESTIFY THAT THIS GENTLEMAN WAS BEATEN UP AND THEN WE HAVE AN EMAIL SAYING THAT I APOLOGIZE FOR BEATING YOU UP.

THIS COMES DOWN TO, IS IT POSSIBLE WITH AN ALL-WHITE JURY OR A JURY WITH WHITE PEOPLE ON IT TO CONVICT A POLICE OFFICER WHO HAS VIOLATED THE RIGHTS OR BEATEN A BLACK PERSON, NEVER MIND IF THEY'RE JUST A PROTESTER?

I GIVE THAT TO BOTH OF YOU.

>> YOU KNOW, I ASKED THE JUROR ABOUT THE TEXT MESSAGES BECAUSE THAT WAS -- YOUR SENTIMENT WAS SHARED BY A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WATCHED THAT TRIAL.

THEY SAID, HOW DO YOU GET PAST THAT?

THERE WERE PEOPLE SORT OF TRYING TO PREDICT THE VERDICT AND THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, WE THINK KORTE MAY GET OFF, BUT WE THINK THE OTHER TWO HAVE TO BE CONVICTED BECAUSE OF THESE TEXT MESSAGES.

EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID WHERE THEY SAY, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO PROSECUTORS, WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO BEATING PROTESTERS, AND THEN AFTER THIS HAPPENED TO LUTHER, THIS LONG APOLOGY TEXT FROM DUSTIN BOONE.

BUT THE DEFENSE LAWYERS WERE ARGUING IT WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, IT WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, AND THAT'S APPARENTLY WHAT RESONATED WITH THE JURY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE GUY SAID TO ME.

WE DIDN'T KNOW IF THIS WAS JUST TALK, AMPING THEMSELVES UP, OR WHETHER IT WAS WHAT THE PROSECUTION SAID IT WAS.

AND TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD TAKE, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD TAKE VIDEO.

IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD TAKE, YOU KNOW, STUDIO LIGHTING AND A VIDEO SHOWING EVERYTHING FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END.

BUT THEN WE WOULDN'T BE IN A TRIAL ANYWAY BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE PLED OUT.

SO I DON'T -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK JURIES DO CRAZY THINGS.

I'VE NEVER BEEN ON A JURY, BUT I ALSO NEVER TRY TO PREDICT WHAT THEY DO BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES IT'S TOUGH TO FIGURE OUT FROM THE CHEAP SEATS.

>> AND I WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT, THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF -- THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF TIME SPENT ON THE TEXT MESSAGES DURING THE TRIAL, BOTH BY THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AS WELL.

YOU KNOW, THE PROSECUTION MADE IT PART OF THEIR CLOSING ARGUMENT, PART OF THEIR OPENING ARGUMENT.

I MEAN, EVERY TIME THEY COULD BRING THEM UP, THEY DID.

AND THE MOST DAMAGING TEXT MESSAGE I FELT WAS THE ONE BY DUSTIN BOONE APOLOGIZING TO LUTHER HALL, AND HIS ATTORNEY IN HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT SAID TO THE JURY, MY CLIENT IS NOT ON TRIAL FOR A TEXT MESSAGE.

MY CLIENT IS ON TRIAL FOR DEPRIVING LUTHER HALL OF HIS CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW.

AND SO HE MADE THAT POINT IN HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT AND HE ALSO SAID THAT HE WASN'T APOLOGIZING FOR BEATING HIM.

HE WAS APOLOGIZING FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM BECAUSE HE FELT LIKE WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM WAS WRONG, AND SO THAT WAS SORT OF HOW THE DEFENSE LEFT IT WITH THE JURY.

>> BUT MYERS ALSO HAD A TEXT, DID HE NOT, ROBERT AND CHRISTINE, WHERE HE SAID I'VE BEEN WANTING TO APOLOGIZE TO HIM BECAUSE I FEEL BAD.

WE OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS A COP.

THAT SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME.

>> RIGHT, BUT I MEAN, THE QUESTION WAS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS HE APOLOGIZING FOR?

AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, AGAIN, THEY WERE ARGUING THAT THEY WERE APOLOGIZING FOR THE WAY HE WAS TREATED, NOT FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL ACTIONS THAT THEY HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH.

I MEAN, MYERS WAS CHARGED WITH INTENTIONALLY BREAKING LUTHER HALL'S CELL PHONE AND ALSO CHARGED WITH DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WERE SAYING THOSE TEXT MESSAGES DIDN'T PROVE THEY DID THOSE TWO THINGS.

I THINK THE OVERALL FEELING AT THE TRIAL WAS THERE WAS NOBODY DENYING THAT LUTHER HALL WAS ASSAULTED THAT NIGHT AND TREATED TERRIBLY AND INJURED.

THE DEBATE WAS WHO DID WHAT AND WHEN AND HOW AND WHERE.

YOU KNOW, WHAT DID EACH INDIVIDUAL OFFICER'S ROLE -- WHAT WAS THEIR ROLE IN THE BEATING?

THAT WAS WHAT WAS UP FOR DEBATE.

>> THE DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, THAT CAN STILL BE REINSTATED, CORRECT?

>> ONLY ON DUSTIN BOONE.

ONLY ON DUSTIN BOONE BECAUSE THE JURY HUNG ON WHETHER HE WAS DWELT OF THAT CHARGE AND THE JURY ALSO HUNG ON WHETHER MYERS INTENTIONALLY DESTROYED THE CELL PHONE.

THOSE OFFICERS CAN STILL BE RETRIED FOR THOSE CHARGES.

STEVE KORTE WAS ACQUITTED OF THE DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS CHARGE AS WELL AS ACQUITTED OF LYING TO THE FBI.

HE WAS ACCUSED OF SAYING THAT HE WAS NOT THERE THE NIGHT OF THE ARREST AND PROSECUTORS WERE ARGUING THAT HE WAS.

AND ALSO, CHRISTOPHER MYERS WAS ACQUITTED OF THE DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AS WELL BY THE JURY.

THE DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS CHARGE IS THE MOST SERIOUS OF ALL OF THEM.

IT CARRIES THAT TEN-YEAR SENTENCE IN A FEDERAL PENITENTIARY.

>> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD FOR BOTH OF YOU, LUTHER HALL IS A 22-YEAR DEPARTMENT VETERAN, AND YET IT SEEMED THAT HE WAS SAYING THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO DISCLOSE THE FACT THAT HE WAS AN UNDERCOVER PROTESTER, A UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICER, BECAUSE HE WAS AFRAID IT WOULD HURT HIS CHANCES OF BEING ASSIGNED AN UNDERCOVER DETAIL IN THE FUTURE.

THAT -- >> THAT WAS HIS -- SORRY.

>> NO, GO AHEAD.

>> THAT WAS HIS THIRD NIGHT OF WORK PROGRESS TEST DUTY, SO HE AND LUNEZ HAD DRESSED IN A CERTAIN WAY AND BEEN BEHAVING IN A CERTAIN WAY SO THEY COULD KEEP COMING BACK AND KEEP COMING BACK, AND SO WHAT HE SAID -- WHAT HE TOLD THE JURORS WAS IF I SAID TO THE COPS, LIKE, I'M A COP, I'M A COP, THERE WAS GUY GETTING ARRESTED RIGHT NEXT TO HIM.

AND SO THAT GUY THEN COULD POINT HIM OUT OF THE CROWD THE NEXT NIGHT AND SAY THIS GUY'S AN UNDERCOVER COP, HE CAN'T DO WHAT HE'S THERE TO DO.

>> THE LEAD PROSECUTOR IS A PRO, BUT IF SHE -- AND EXPERIENCED, GREAT REPUTATION, AND IF SHE WERE TO COME UP TO YOU TWO GUYS AND SAY YOU SAW IT ALL, WE'RE GOING TO RETRY THEM, WHAT SHOULD I DO DIFFERENTLY, WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE HER?

START WITH YOU, ROBERT.

>> YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY STRUCK ME IN THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS WAS, YOU KNOW, I MEAN YOU'RE HIT OVER THE HEAD WITH THE FACT THAT THESE ARE THREE POLICE OFFICERS IN UNIFORM ON DUTY AND, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW THAT ABOUT LUTHER HALL AS WELL, BUT THE THING THAT I FELT LIKE WAS MISSING IN HER CLOSING ARGUMENT WAS THIS GUY IS A POLICE OFFICER TOO.

THIS GUY WAS ON DUTY.

THIS GUY WAS DOING HIS JOB.

I MEAN, SHE SAID IT, BUT SHE DIDN'T KIND OF HIT IT OVER THE HEAD.

IF YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE THAT THIN BLUE LINE KIND OF THING, IF YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE THAT, THE JURORS' TRADITIONAL RELUCTANCE TO FIND AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS, YOU'VE GOT TO -- YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT TO ELEVATE HIM IN SORT OF THEIR MINDS TO THE SAME STATUS AS A GUY WHO'S WEARING A UNIFORM AND THERE WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE.

I MEAN, I DON'T -- YOU KNOW, THE JURORS HAD TO KNOW THAT, BUT THERE WAS -- IT JUST SEEMED LIKE THE FOOTING WAS UNEQUAL THERE BECAUSE OF THAT EMPHASIS ON WHAT THE UNIFORMED GUYS WERE DOING AND WHAT THEIR ROLE WAS.

>> OKAY.

>> I THINK WHAT I MIGHT TELL HER IS, MAKE SURE YOUR WITNESSES GET THEIR STORY STRAIGHT.

I THINK THERE WERE SEVERAL TIMES SOME OF THE TESTIMONY -- WOULDN'T YOU AGREE, ROBERT?

I MEAN, THERE WERE JUST SO MANY INCONSISTENCIES AMONG THEM, ESPECIALLY RANDY HAYES.

>> YEAH, AND THEY SAID -- I THINK THEY SPENT FAR TOO LONG GOING FRAME BY FRAME THROUGH THESE PICTURES WHEN THEY -- WHEN THE INTERPRETATION OF THEM IS IN DOUBT, YOU KNOW.

I MEAN, IF YOU HAVE ONE LAWYER SAYING ONE THING AND ANOTHER LAWYER SAYING ANOTHER, WHY ARE YOU SPENDING HOURS AND HOURS GOING THROUGH THESE THINGS?

THE JURORS CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY MEAN AND OBVIOUSLY IN THIS CASE, THEY DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE THAT HELPFUL.

>> YEAH, I MEAN THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE AND THE VIDEO EVIDENCE JUST -- IT WASN'T DEFINITIVE ENOUGH TO REALLY PROVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHO WAS DOING WHAT, WHEN, AND WHERE.

AND LIKE YOU SAID, BOTH SIDES ARGUED THIS PICTURE SHOWS THIS AND THE DEFENSE WOULD GET UP AND SAY, NO, IT DOESN'T, IT SHOWS.

>> I MEAN, REMEMBER, THESE WERE SHOT IN LOW LIGHT FROM ACROSS THE STREET AND WHAT THEY ENDED UP HAVING TO DO TO SORT OF TRY TO IDENTIFY OFFICERS IS HERE'S A GUY WITH AN MATTE BLACK HELMET, HERE'S A GUY WITH SLEEVES ROLLED UP TO THREE-QUARTER LENGTH AND THIS GUY HAS A STICKER HERE AND A PATCH THERE, SO THIS PARTICULAR PERSON HAS TO BE THE SAME GUY FROM FRAME TO FRAME.

IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE AND SAYING IT CLEAR TO ME THAT ROBERT PATRICK IS ON THIS ZOOM.

YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LEFT WITH THESE LITTLE CLUES ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE WEARING AND HOW THEY HAD THEIR UNIFORM SET UP AND WHO WAS CARRYING A BATON TO SORT OF TRY TO PARSE WHO'S DOING WHAT IN THESE PICTURES.

THEY DID, I THINK, ENHANCE THEM, BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME.

YOU HAD THAT GREAT PICTURE OF CHRIS MYERS FROM LUTHER HALL'S CELL PHONE OR FROM THE VIDEO WHERE HE'S KIND OF STANDING UP LIKE THIS.

THAT WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BETTER SHOTS.

>> I WOULD GO BACK TO THE POINT, TOO, EARLIER OF WHY LUTHER HALL DIDN'T BLOW HIS COVER AND THE STATEMENTS HE MADE ON THAT ASPECT OF IT.

AND BECAUSE BASICALLY THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW, WHEN HIS PARTNERS WAS IN THE ARREST SITUATION, POLICE WERE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT HE WAS A COP BECAUSE WHEN THEY SEARCHED HIS BACKPACK, HIS DEPARTMENT-ISSUED WEAPON AND BADGE WERE IN THERE AND THEY SAID WHY DO YOU HAVE, THIS AND HE'S LIKE, BECAUSE I'M A COP.

AND LUTHER HALL WAS NOT CARRYING HIS WEAPON THAT NIGHT OR ANYTHING TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF AS A POLICE OFFICER.

THEN ON THE LAST DAY OF THE DEFENSE PART OF THE TRIAL, THEY CALLED A POLICE CAPTAIN TO THE STAND WHO ACTUALLY SAID THAT LUNEZ AND LUTHER HALL SHOULD HAVE BLOWN THEIR COVER THE MOMENT THEY FELT UNSAFE, WHICH IN HIS OPINION WAS WHEN THEY STARTED HAVING PEPPER BALLS FIRE AT THEM AFTER THE DISPERSAL ORDER WAS GIVEN AND POLICE REALLY STARTED, YOU KNOW, USING FORCE.

THEY SAID THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE ENDED THEIR OPERATION RIGHT THEN AND THERE.

>> BUT THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE POINT OF MY QUESTION.

I THOUGHT A 22-YEAR DEPARTMENT VETERAN, IF HE IS BEING PEPPER-SPRAYED AND IF HE FEELS THAT HE IS IN DANGER, I CAN'T IMAGINE SAYING, OKAY, I COULD END UP DEAD OR I WON'T BE ASSIGNED UNDERCOVER ANYMORE.

THAT JUST DOESN'T -- THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME, BUT I'M NOT A POLICE OFFICER.

SO I CAN'T SAY.

>> THERE'S ALSO -- >> WELL, THE POINT IS -- >> THERE'S ALSO SOME DANGER IN BEING, YOU KNOW, OUTED THERE.

THERE IS SOME DANGER AS BEING OUTED AS AN UNDERCOVER PERSON.

I MEAN, I WAS WALKING AROUND THAT NIGHT FURTHER BACK IN THE CROWD THAN LUTHER HALL AND I REMEMBER DISTINCTLY SOMEBODY POINTING TO A GUY AND SAYING THAT PERSON'S AN UNDERCOVER COP.

I NEVER SAW ANYTHING HAPPEN TO THEM, BUT IT'S NOT -- YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A GREAT THING TO BE SORT OF, RIGHT OR WRONG, OUTED AS AN UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICER IN THAT SITUATION.

>> I WOULD ALSO ADD TO THAT POINT, THOUGH, THAT NIGHT LUTHER HALL ALSO TESTIFIED THAT HIS MAIN OBJECTIVE AFTER ALL THIS HAPPENED WAS TO GET BACK TO HEADQUARTERS AS SOON AS HE COULD TO UPLOAD ALL OF HIS FOOTAGE AND, YOU KNOW, INPUT ALL OF THE FINDINGS IN HIS REPORTS AND THAT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT ALL HIS WORK TO GO TO WASTE AND HE WAS VERY INTERESTED IN CONTINUING TO DO POLICE WORK.

HE SAID HE JUST REALLY WASN'T IN THE MINDSET OF REALLY ABSORBING AND REALIZING WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM THAT NIGHT, AND HE WAS JUST SO FOCUSED ON THE OPERATION, THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE ANY OF THE WORK.

SO IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO HIM.

>> I WANT TO -- >> RAY.

>> YEAH, I WANT TO ASK YOU, I DON'T HAVE AS GOOD A QUESTION AS BILL, BUT TO MAKE SPORTS WRITERS OUT OF YOU, THIS WAS A BATTLE BETWEEN SOME REALLY HIGH QUALITY LAWYERS ON BOTH SIDES, AND OBVIOUSLY SCOTT ROSENBLUM WITH HIS REPUTATION AS BEING ALMOST UNBEATABLE, AND THE OTHERS -- >> JOHN ROGERS.

>> ROGERS AND -- WELL, ALL THREE OF THEM.

>> PAT KILGORE.

>> RIGHT.

>> THE POINT IS, WAS THIS MORE OF A WIN FOR THE DEFENSE OR A LOSS FOR THE PROSECUTION?

AND AS A FOLLOW-UP, DO YOU THINK THE PROSECUTION WILL PURSUE THE CHARGES, I GUESS THEY'RE GOING TO ANNOUNCE NEXT WEEK, ABOUT -- ON THE ONES THAT WERE HUNG?

>> WELL, I WOULD ACTUALLY SAY THAT SOME OF THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS THAT I'VE TALKED TO THAT WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, BUT OBVIOUSLY WATCHING IT VERY CLOSELY BECAUSE OF THE HIGH PROFILE NAMES THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THIS LEGAL BATTLE, SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY TOLD ME THAT LOSING TO THE GOVERNMENT IN A FEDERAL TRIAL IS TANTAMOUNT TO MALPRACTICE, THAT THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, THEY BELIEVE IS SO SLANTED TOWARDS THE GOVERNMENT, THAT IT IS REALLY DIFFICULT TO WIN A CASE AGAINST THEM.

THAT'S KIND OF THE GENERAL FEELING THAT I WAS GETTING OUT THERE ABOUT REACTIONS LOCALLY.

>> 30 SECONDS TO GO, ROBERT.

>> OH.

WELL, I HAD A DEFENSE LAWYER QUIBBLE WITH OUR HEADLINE WHICH DESCRIBED IT AS A MIXED VERDICT.

KIND OF THE SAME THING CHRISTINE SAID.

YOU KNOW, 99% OF THE FEDERAL CASES RESULT IN CONVICTIONS, AND SO IF IT'S AN OUTCOME OTHER THAN THAT, THEN IT'S A WIN TO THE DEFENSE.

>> THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE FOR THIS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOURS, ROBERT PATRICK FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, CHRISTINE BYERS FROM 5 ON YOUR SIDE, KSDK.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US FOR THIS EDITION OF NEXT UP AND WE LOOK TOWARD TO FOLLOWING YOUR WORK ONLINE, ON THE TELEVISION, AND IN THE NEWSPAPER.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR JOINING US.

WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK AT THIS TIME.

>> Announcer: DONNYBROOK IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE MEMBERS OF NINE PBS.