With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 743 S.W.2d 51, 64-65 (Mo.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017, 108 S.Ct. 1755, 100 L.Ed.2d 217 (1988)). I would follow those cases requiring trial courts to consider evidence of racially-motivated strikes in previous proceedings. One of the officers’ allegations was that the police chief was given preferential treatment because he is black. Thus, race was an issue in this case. Evidence from the first jury selection would have been significant in showing that the officers used peremptory strikes as part of a discriminatory pattern. Because the trial court’s refusal to consider the officers’ behavior in the first trial was clearly erroneous, I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on this point. 1 . See FDIC v. Meyer, -U.S. -,-, 114 S.Ct. 996, 1005-06, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Tutt v. City of Abilene, 877 S.W.2d 86, 89

A: recognizing cause of action against federal officials for violation of constitutional rights
B: recognizing the cause of action
C: recognizing cause of action
D: holding that a bivens cause of action cannot be maintained against a federal agency
D.