STLPR0%

Gore touts progress in three years as St. Louis circuit attorney 49%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

6/4/2026, 8:03:16 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Anecdotal, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 16.6% saturation with 110 hits. Analysis detected 1,116 faulty-reasoning hits from 662 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.1% and a BS Rank of 49% (10,470 of 20,518 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 51.00% of the article peer group.

It has been three years since Gabe Gore was sworn in as the appointed circuit attorney of St. 
Louis. 
In that time, he has more than doubled the number of attorneys prosecuting cases from 22 to 49, cleared an inherited backlog of nearly 7,000 cases, restarted the office’s diversion program and boosted its community outreach. 
“Our vision for the circuit attorney's office for the City of St. 
Louis is that we will be one of the highest-performing prosecuting attorneys' offices in the country, and in this past year, we continue to work towards those goals,” Gore said Thursday as he provided an update on his third full year in office. 
Prosecutors filed about 300 more felony cases in Gore’s third year compared to his second, and more than 90% of those cases were charged within 24 hours, compared to about 85% between May 31, 2024, and May 31, 2025. 
“If you don't get the case charged, reviewed, and charged within 24 hours, that person is released and continues to pose a risk to public safety,” he said. 
While the amount of time it took for a case to move from charging to sentencing increased compared to last year, Gore said he is still comfortable with the 294 days to disposition. 
That can be affected by factors that are out of his control, he said, like judicial retirements. 
Although Gore’s predecessor championed the use of alternatives to prosecution, the office under Kim Gardner did not have a robust diversion program. 
Gore spent a good part of the past three years rebuilding its efforts, which he said have a 99% success rate. 
Gore took over an office that had lost the trust and respect of many parts of the community. 
He sought to correct that by investing in outreach, including a citizens academy and a program that assigns an assistant circuit attorney to a neighborhood organization. 
“As we continued to show up in the community, we really started to build that trust,” he said. 
“I think at this point three years in, we have a track record that I think the vast majority of the citizens of the city of St. 
Louis look at and appreciate.” 
While Gore said he has made the office a place people want to work, retention remains a problem. 
More than half of the office’s 49 trial attorneys have less than three years' experience, and their caseloads remain high. 
Gore hopes to get to 55 trial attorneys by the fall, just short of his budgeted strength. 
But the office does not pay well compared to neighboring counties or the private sector, and Gore acknowledged that makes it hard to keep employees. 
“You're going to have a certain amount of attrition, because everybody's not going to be a career prosecutor, but when you're not competitive on pay, you probably cause people to go into private practice sooner,” he said. 
Gore says he is working within his limited budget to take small steps to improve the office, such as washing the windows regularly. 
“When I got here, the windows at our office had not been cleaned literally for like 11 years,” he said. 
“It makes a difference when you have windows that you can look out and actually see sunlight.” 
The last 16 months of Gore’s term have run parallel to President Trump’s aggressive stance on immigration enforcement. 
But Gore told reporters that federal law enforcement has not been more active in cases where the defendant is in the country without legal status. 
“I know that there are people who are victims of crime who are reluctant to come forward because of their status,” he said. 
“I know that there are witnesses who are reluctant to come forward because they don't have legal status to be in the country. 
So that's an issue we've always been concerned about. 
Whether there's been any uptick in that or not. 
I don't know.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.4%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias5.1%This article: 3.5%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect3.5%This article: 11.6%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias11.6%This article: 14.7%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias14.7%This article: 3.0%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias3.0%This article: 15.3%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias15.3%This article: 3.3%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error3.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.7%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority9.7%This article: 4.2%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma4.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 1.4%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning1.4%This article: 5.6%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.8%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.8%This article: 4.2%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion4.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.4%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.8%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof3.8%This article: 2.6%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature2.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.7%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal12.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.4%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.7%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote9.7%This article: 6.5%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection6.5%This article: 16.6%Rachel Lippmann: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice16.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

662 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker48%attributed speech346writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageGabe Gore • 12 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Gore • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Gore • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageGabe Gore • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Gore • 18 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Gore • 27 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Gore • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Gore • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageGabe Gore • 20 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Gore • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Gore • 25 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Gore • 23 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Gore • 23 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Gore • 9 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Gore • 9 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Gore • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Gabe Gore

95%flagged-word coverage
316 attributed words100% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.8 ptsWriter: 31.8%Gabe Gore: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+13.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Gabe Gore: 13.6%13.6%Unattributed Quote+7.5 ptsWriter: 6.1%Gabe Gore: 13.6%13.6%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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