Gun-waving St. Louis couple seek to remove top prosecutor from case
The St. Louis couple who got into legal trouble for waving guns at protesters during a racial injustice demonstration in June will ask a judge to replace a top prosecutor in the case.
Earlier this month, a grand jury indicted Mark and Patricia McCloskey — both personal injury attorneys in their 60s — on charges of unlawful use of a weapon and tampering with evidence.
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, their lawyer, Joel Schwartz, is expected to argue Wednesday afternoon that Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner and her staff should be disqualified from the case, saying that Gardner’s reelection campaign exploited the matter for political gain.
Gardner, who easily won the Democratic primary for the city’s top prosecutor in August, did mention the case in an email sent to possible donors — but denies using the case to score political points.
At issue was an incident that dates back to the summer, when the two were photographed pulling guns and waving them at protesters, who were marching to St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson’s home, just a few blocks from the McCloskey’s mansion.
Mark was seen holding an AR-15 rifle, while his wife, Patricia, displayed a semiautomatic handgun.
The confrontation quickly went viral, drawing the ire of racial equality activists — and turning the couple into Second Amendment heroes in some conservative circles.
The two were even featured speakers on the first night of the Republican National Convention in August, when they gave an impassioned endorsement of President Trump, and claimed that Democrats “no longer view the government’s job as protecting honest citizens from criminals, but rather protecting criminals from honest citizens.”
“What you saw happen to us could just as easily happen to any of you who are watching from quiet neighborhoods around our country, and that’s what we want to speak to you about tonight,” Patricia said.
Her husband used the opportunity to express outrage that they were charged with felonies “for daring to defend our home.”
According to their lawyer, Gardner’s campaign emails “drew a direct line” from the incident to “Gardner’s political antagonists, and from there a call for donations to further her reelection efforts.”
Gardner’s office responded that the “fundraising emails establish her interest was only in pushing back against Republican attacks on her and her prosecutorial authority — which have nothing to do with the defendants.”
A ruling is not expected Wednesday.
