Lawyers allege conflict of interest as spat to replace St. Louis sheriff continues 0%

By Chad Davis0%

4/15/2026, 7:52:19 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Status Quo Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 18.2% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 396 faulty-reasoning hits from 274 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 16,813 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

A St. 
Louis judge is weighing whether the sheriff’s department can be part of a lawsuit over who gets to select the interim sheriff. 
Judge Thomas McCarthy heard arguments from the state, city and the sheriff’s department during a hearing Wednesday. 
Sheriff’s lawyers filed a motion to intervene in the case, arguing that when Judge Christopher E. 
McGraugh filed an order to appoint John Hayden Jr. as interim sheriff in October, it was a final decision. 
“The time to appeal has passed, and that order remains final,” sheriff’s department lawyer David C. 
Mason said. 
It’s the latest in an ongoing battle over who has the right to select the interim sheriff. 
The city filed a lawsuit in December claiming the mayor has the authority. 
The St. 
Louis Board of Aldermen filed its own motion to intervene before McCarthy removed it in January, ruling that the board cannot file a suit separate from the city. 
The attorney general’s office has argued Gov. 
Mike Kehoe has the power. 
State lawyers also objected to the sheriff’s office's motion to intervene, arguing the office has to provide a right to intervene. 
The state maintained there’s a conflict of interest because the same lawyers are representing the sheriff’s department and Montgomery. 
Montgomery is asking for a new trial after a judge removed him from office. 
“The goal of that representation is at odds,” Assistant Attorney General Greg Goodwin said. 
Mason said there isn’t a conflict and submitted written consent from Montgomery and Hayden about the double representation. 
McCarthy will make a decision at a later date. 
Confirmation Bias
13.5%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
3.6%
Representativeness Heuristic
6.9%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
3.3%
Framing Effect
11.3%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
13.5%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
5.1%
Negativity Bias
15%
Self-Serving Bias
6.6%
Fundamental Attribution Error
6.9%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
6.2%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
7.7%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
6.9%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
5.1%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
18.2%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
5.8%
Quote-first Misdirection
5.1%
Biased Writer Voice
3.6%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

274 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.