Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The killing of George Floyd and the viral video of
Speaker 1: the police officer kneeling on the black man's neck sparked
Speaker 1: a movement for racial justice. This week, that former Minneapolis
Speaker 1: police officer goes on trial in a case that will
Speaker 1: combine elements of the trial of l A police officers
Speaker 1: in the beating of Rodney King and the media spectacle
Speaker 1: of the O. J. Simpson trial, all against a backdrop
Speaker 1: of the Black Lives Matter movement. The challenges in selecting
Speaker 1: a jury in such a well known case are illustrated
Speaker 1: by exchanges like this between potential jurors and the defense attorney,
Speaker 1: Eric Nelson. Do you attribute responsibility for that to my
Speaker 1: client sitting here today based on the media presentation, I
Speaker 1: don't think I can say one way or another. I mean,
Speaker 1: not here. You know, maybe at the time I have
Speaker 1: an opinion in but with some distance, I don't think
Speaker 1: I can say. Joining me as former federal prosecutor Robert Mints,
Speaker 1: a partner McCarter and English. There are protesters holding signs
Speaker 1: outside the courthouse, No justice, no Peace, speakers asking the
Speaker 1: jurors to do the right thing. How do you get
Speaker 1: a jury that is not influenced by that or has
Speaker 1: informed an opinion about the video of Chauvin kneeling on
Speaker 1: Floyd's neck. That's a great question because this trial is
Speaker 1: certainly shaping up to be one of the trials of
Speaker 1: the sanctuary. You know, we first had the Charles Lindbergh
Speaker 1: trial involving the kidnapping of the aviator's son in Hope Ow,
Speaker 1: New Jersey. Then we had the O. J. Simpson trial,
Speaker 1: and now we have the trial of former Minneapolis police
Speaker 1: officer Derek Schilvin, which could be the next big trial
Speaker 1: of the sanctuary. They're gonna be televisions in the courtroom,
Speaker 1: which is going to be a first for the state
Speaker 1: of Minnesota. And it's a case that is very difficult
Speaker 1: in terms of picking a jury because so many people
Speaker 1: have seen the video of the officer with his knee
Speaker 1: on the neck of Mr Floyd, and so many people
Speaker 1: have formed an opinion one way or the other about
Speaker 1: whether this police officers conduct led to the death of
Speaker 1: George Floyd. So what kinds of questions do the attorneys
Speaker 1: asked to try to get a juror who is going
Speaker 1: to be able to look at the evidence in the
Speaker 1: case and not what they know from media. In the
Speaker 1: minds of a lot of people, the selection of the
Speaker 1: jury for this trial may be the most difficult part
Speaker 1: of the case, both for the lawyers and for the judge.
Speaker 1: If you're on the defense side, you're gonna ask questions
Speaker 1: about whether jurors can focus solely on the information that
Speaker 1: is revealed in the corey in itself and not be
Speaker 1: influenced by outside influences like newspapers and television, or neighbors
Speaker 1: or other people who may be trying to give you
Speaker 1: information about what's going on outside of the courtroom. They're
Speaker 1: all sore gonna be asked about whether they've learned anything
Speaker 1: about this case through the media or whether they've absorbed
Speaker 1: information about the case through the culture after the long
Speaker 1: summer of racial justice demonstrations that were sparked by Floyd's death.
Speaker 1: They'll also be asked about the Black Lives Matter movement,
Speaker 1: how they feel about that, and how they feel about
Speaker 1: the rise of the Blue Lives Matter movement. So there's
Speaker 1: a lot of issues swirling around out there, and it's
Speaker 1: going to be impossible to find a juror who doesn't
Speaker 1: know anything about any of these issues. So ultimately comes
Speaker 1: down to the question of whether or not they can
Speaker 1: be fair and impartial, and whether they can make a
Speaker 1: decision based solely on the evidence that's presented at the
Speaker 1: trial and not be influenced by outside sources and not
Speaker 1: bring preconceived notions into the jury room when they ultimately
Speaker 1: make a decision about the guilt or innocence of former
Speaker 1: officers Chauvin. On the first day of jury selection, three
Speaker 1: jurors were picked. Does that indicate that it may not
Speaker 1: be as hard to get a jury as many thought. Well,
Speaker 1: the judge, i think, has said early on that he's
Speaker 1: allowing three weeks for jury selection, but you never know
Speaker 1: how long that's gonna last. It really depends on who
Speaker 1: shows up in the jury pool. It depends on the
Speaker 1: questions that are being asked by the prosecution and the defense.
Speaker 1: So we may see a jury picked more quickly than
Speaker 1: people anticipated. So two of the jurors who were selected
Speaker 1: have seen the video. Can you look at that video
Speaker 1: without forming an opinion? It's well, that's really the question.
Speaker 1: So many people have seen that video, But ultimately it's
Speaker 1: not whether you've seen the video or not seen the video.
Speaker 1: It's whether or not you can keep an open mind
Speaker 1: and consider only the evidence that's presented during the trial
Speaker 1: in making your decisions. So if a juror can say,
Speaker 1: I saw the video, but I can put that out
Speaker 1: of my mind, not consider that an only focus on
Speaker 1: the evidence that's presented a trial, and that I don't
Speaker 1: come into the trial with any preconceived notion one way
Speaker 1: or the other, then they are arguably available to sit
Speaker 1: for this jury. Let's talk about the charges. First of all,
Speaker 1: how unusual is it that they're selecting a jury but
Speaker 1: the charges haven't been settled on yet. Yeah, that is
Speaker 1: very unusual. And this is a case whereas you say,
Speaker 1: the charges are still unsettled. Judge k Hill, who's the
Speaker 1: trial judge you will be hearing this case, had previously
Speaker 1: tossed out his third degree murder charge, leading prosecutors with
Speaker 1: the second degree unintentional felony murder and second degree manslaughter,
Speaker 1: but that decision was overturned by the Court of Appeals,
Speaker 1: which decided that the judge had refused to reinstate the
Speaker 1: third degree charge because the alleged deaths causing act was
Speaker 1: not at a single person. The appeals court said that
Speaker 1: was wrong and that the trial judge had failed to
Speaker 1: follow precedent. But at the same time they send it
Speaker 1: back to the trial judge to be reconsidered, and so
Speaker 1: Chauvin and his counsel are still free to raise other
Speaker 1: arguments against reinstating that third degree murder charge. So the
Speaker 1: prosecutors have second degree unintentional felony murder and second degree manslaughter.
Speaker 1: Why do they want a third degree murder charge? Well,
Speaker 1: as prosecutors, you always want to be able to give
Speaker 1: jurors a choice, and you'd rather have more than just
Speaker 1: two choices. So inevitably there will be some people on
Speaker 1: the jury who lean heavily towards conviction. There may be
Speaker 1: others who lean either towards acquittal or at least are
Speaker 1: less focused on the most serious charges. And ultimately what
Speaker 1: they do is they go back in the jury room
Speaker 1: and they spend hours and hours going over the evidence
Speaker 1: and having discussions, and there is a consensus that is
Speaker 1: developed because, as you know, jury in a criminal case
Speaker 1: has to be a unanimous verdict. That means every single
Speaker 1: juror who's sitting on jury has to agree as to
Speaker 1: every account of conviction. In a criminal case, and so
Speaker 1: it's a compromise by definition, and that's why prosecutors like
Speaker 1: to give jurors a number of options so that if
Speaker 1: they have to compromise, there's different ways that they can
Speaker 1: do it without going all or nothing. Clearly, prosecutors in
Speaker 1: this case are not looking for a second degree manslaughter,
Speaker 1: looking for one of the more serious charges. By adding
Speaker 1: third degree murder, it gives them something between the second
Speaker 1: degree and the manslaughter charge to go after. In case,
Speaker 1: jurors are of different minds on this and they're looking
Speaker 1: for some way to come up with a compromise verdict.
Speaker 1: Since police officers are authorized to use force, how does
Speaker 1: that complicate the prosecutor's case, Well, it becomes a case
Speaker 1: that focuses on causation. I think we're going to see
Speaker 1: the defense raising the cause of death. Uh, They're going
Speaker 1: to present medical experts, and the issue of causation is
Speaker 1: going to be central to their case. In other words,
Speaker 1: they are going to try to argue not only that
Speaker 1: the officer's conduct was reasonable under the circumstances, but even
Speaker 1: more importantly, from the defense standpoint, they're going to say
Speaker 1: that whatever the police officer did, however, reasonable it was
Speaker 1: that it did not ultimately cause George Floyd's death, And
Speaker 1: they're going to point to factors that were highlighted in
Speaker 1: the medical examiner's report that showed that Mr. Floyd had
Speaker 1: certain health issues, that he had drugs in his system
Speaker 1: at the time of his death. They may argue that
Speaker 1: he was a likely resisting arrest, and ultimately this becomes
Speaker 1: a battle of the experts as to whether or not
Speaker 1: the defense can show that prosecutors are unable to draw
Speaker 1: a direct line between the conduct of Officer Chauvin and
Speaker 1: the death of George Floyd. So in the Ronnie King trial,
Speaker 1: you know, the video was played over and over and
Speaker 1: was stopped. Do you expect that this nine minute video
Speaker 1: is going to be played and stopped at different points. Well,
Speaker 1: I think if you're the prosecution, you're absolutely going to
Speaker 1: play that video because it's it's riveting, it's very compelling evidence,
Speaker 1: and I think it makes it difficult for the defense
Speaker 1: to in any way argue that the restraint that was
Speaker 1: used by Officer Chauvin was somehow reasonable under the circumstances.
Speaker 1: That's why I expect a defense to focus more on
Speaker 1: the issue of causation rather than that the force that
Speaker 1: was used was was reasonable. Certainly that will be an issue.
Speaker 1: Certainly they will try from the defense side to argue
Speaker 1: that you have to look at all the facts and circumstances.
Speaker 1: You look at the size of Mr. Floyd, you look
Speaker 1: at the fact that they're going to argue that he
Speaker 1: appeared to be under the influence of some kind of
Speaker 1: drugs and the officers were taking steps to reasonably subdue him.
Speaker 1: That's going to be the defense argument. Of course, the
Speaker 1: prostitution is going to argue that the force was clearly excessive,
Speaker 1: that even bystanders who were simply walking by were so
Speaker 1: alarmed that they spoke to the police officers to try
Speaker 1: to get them to remove some of their restraints, to
Speaker 1: try to get officers Chouven to remove his knee from
Speaker 1: the neck of George Floyd. They're going to argue that
Speaker 1: it was so clearly excessive that there's no question that
Speaker 1: the force was not appropriate in light of the risk
Speaker 1: that George Floyd posed to the police officers. Many people
Speaker 1: who saw the video will say, there's no way the
Speaker 1: at this police officer won't be convicted of something. But
Speaker 1: have we learned from past trials of police officers that
Speaker 1: that's not necessarily the case. Yeah, their history of convicting
Speaker 1: police officers for using excessive force is certainly a checkered
Speaker 1: one in this country. There's no question that there have
Speaker 1: been other cases. We looked at the Rodney King case,
Speaker 1: for example, where there was a state prosecution and ultimately
Speaker 1: ended in an acquittal. We saw the federal government then
Speaker 1: come in and retry the case on federal civil rights
Speaker 1: charges and gain a conviction. By the way, that could
Speaker 1: happen here as well. Even though these state charges are
Speaker 1: going to be tried first. This doesn't deprive the federal
Speaker 1: government of prosecuting this case all over again on civil
Speaker 1: rights charges if they don't like the outcome here. No
Speaker 1: double jeopardy attaches because the charges are different and the
Speaker 1: sovereign's difference one is the state one of the federal government.
Speaker 1: So we could see that here. But prosecuting police officers
Speaker 1: has historically been difficult. People view police officers mostly in
Speaker 1: a favorable light in this country, and the question is
Speaker 1: whether the officers were acting reasonably in light of all
Speaker 1: the facts and circumstances. Were they fearful for their own safety,
Speaker 1: was the restraint being used reasonable in light of what
Speaker 1: they knew at the time. The defense will sairly argue
Speaker 1: that hindsight is easy to apply to this circumstance, but
Speaker 1: the police officers have to make these decisions in real time,
Speaker 1: been a split second type of setting, and that one
Speaker 1: wrong move can lead to the death of a police officers.
Speaker 1: So they'll argue that this force was all reasonable and
Speaker 1: there's nothing excessive about this at all, But the video
Speaker 1: is gonna be very difficult for them to overcome in
Speaker 1: that regard. What do you think the chances are that
Speaker 1: the defendant takes the stand. Certainly the moment of highest
Speaker 1: anticipation in this trial will be whether or not the
Speaker 1: former police officer Derek Scholvin will take a stand in
Speaker 1: his own defense. Historically, that's something that we're likely to see.
Speaker 1: The defense doesn't really have a lot to gain by
Speaker 1: putting him on the stand, and what it does is
Speaker 1: it gives prosecutors the chance to essentially retry their case.
Speaker 1: So all the evidence that they presented in their case
Speaker 1: when they turn over to the defense, if the defendant
Speaker 1: takes the stand, they can cross examine the defendant with
Speaker 1: all the evidence all over again. They can take him
Speaker 1: through that videotape, minute by minute and across examined on
Speaker 1: what was going through his mind, why he felt that
Speaker 1: that type overstraint was reasonable, why he allegedly felt that
Speaker 1: he was in fear for his safety and had to
Speaker 1: put the knee on the neck of George Floyd for
Speaker 1: eleven minutes. So I don't think we're going to see
Speaker 1: the defendant in this case take the stand, And when
Speaker 1: defendants do take the stand in their own defense, it
Speaker 1: usually does not work out to their benefit. The judge
Speaker 1: has separated Chauvin's case from that of the three other
Speaker 1: former police officers charged in Floyd's death. Does that give
Speaker 1: the advantage to the defense or to the prosecution? Prosecutors
Speaker 1: typically want to try all the defendants together at the
Speaker 1: same time for number of reasons. First of all, they
Speaker 1: have witnesses who are going to testify about difficult circumstances,
Speaker 1: about difficult facts. And what they don't want to have
Speaker 1: is witnesses who have to testify over and over and
Speaker 1: over again about the same circumstances. Because human nature being
Speaker 1: what it is, every time somebody remembers something and recalls
Speaker 1: what they saw, they're going to recall it slightly differently,
Speaker 1: and that gives defense lawyers fodder for cross examination and
Speaker 1: to try to pick apart the witnesses testimony. So prosecugers
Speaker 1: will routinely try to keep all those cases together and
Speaker 1: not let the defendants be tried separately. The procedugers also
Speaker 1: don't want a situation which defendants can point the stinger
Speaker 1: and an empty chair, in other words, where they will
Speaker 1: argue that one of the other defendants was really at
Speaker 1: fault and there's nobody there for jurors to listen to.
Speaker 1: There's nobody there who jurors can weigh the evidence against
Speaker 1: and determine whether one defendant is more culpable than the other.
Speaker 1: The prosecuters like to try these cases together. In this case,
Speaker 1: I'm sure they wanted all the defendants to be tried together.
Speaker 1: This ultimately will not help the prosecution, although it does
Speaker 1: give prosecuters the opportunity to focus in case entirely on
Speaker 1: Auster Shauman and not all the other defendants at the
Speaker 1: same time. That's Robert Manson, McCarter and English. The prosecutors
Speaker 1: in the long running TV legal drama Law and Order
Speaker 1: are from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. The most high
Speaker 1: profile d a's office in the country with a storied history,
Speaker 1: but now despite a recent rising crime many of the
Speaker 1: candidates for d A are not talking about law and order.
Speaker 1: They're talking about which crimes they won't prosecute and defunding
Speaker 1: the office and the police. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal
Speaker 1: reporter Patricia Hurd Todd. So, pat tell us about the
Speaker 1: candidates running for Manhattan d A. It's an open field
Speaker 1: and it's what some people are calling it historic rate
Speaker 1: because eight people are find to be the Manhattan d A.
Speaker 1: It's historic, and that there are six women and two men,
Speaker 1: and one of the men is a black man who
Speaker 1: used to be an assistant U S Attorney in Manhattan
Speaker 1: and former chief of Deputy Attorney General for the state
Speaker 1: of New York. So the very next d A may
Speaker 1: be either a black man or a woman. The candidates
Speaker 1: have a variety of opinions, many of them being very
Speaker 1: progressive for what we've normally seen. But this is part
Speaker 1: of a growing trend for progressives to basically take hold
Speaker 1: of the conversation in certain campaigns to promote more progressive agenda.
Speaker 1: Is so tell us a little bit about the office
Speaker 1: and its history. The Manhattan d A. It's always been
Speaker 1: a high profile because Asian. You know, this goes back
Speaker 1: to Tom Dewey was the d A before he became
Speaker 1: governor of the State of New York, and under Bob Morgantow,
Speaker 1: the legendary Manhattan d A. He basically remade the office
Speaker 1: into a very progressive, interesting place. I mean like he
Speaker 1: created a sex crime unit that investigated sex crimes. So
Speaker 1: that's why the creators of Law and Order used Mr
Speaker 1: Morgantow as the prototype for their character of the legendary
Speaker 1: d A that is running the office. And a lot
Speaker 1: of his cases were very creative. I mean he brought
Speaker 1: this Bank of Credit and Commerce case, an international financial
Speaker 1: fraud case. He's broad cases against Tycho and Dennis Kazlasky
Speaker 1: for tax evasion and all kinds of excesses of the
Speaker 1: late nineties. The cases include famous murder cases like the
Speaker 1: Preppy murder case, or with Jennifer Levin was killed in
Speaker 1: Central Park by allegedly her boy friend, the Central Park
Speaker 1: Jagger case. So you know, a crime happens in New York,
Speaker 1: he gets a lot of the media attention and the
Speaker 1: manhattand A's office will bring some very high profile prosecution.
Speaker 1: And Morgan thou especially was the guy that took on
Speaker 1: the mob. Elliott Spister was an a d A and
Speaker 1: Assistant District attorney. And they brought a case against the
Speaker 1: mafia for carting in Manhattan and they have you know, influence,
Speaker 1: and they would call the mob tax. So Morgan though,
Speaker 1: and they brought this case to clean up like this
Speaker 1: unofficial tax that the mafia was charging to cartway garbage
Speaker 1: from restaurants and businesses in Manhattan. So do we know
Speaker 1: for certain that Sivance is not seeking reelection? He has
Speaker 1: not officially said. We don't know. Officially. He is barely
Speaker 1: raised any money whatsoever compared to some of the candidates
Speaker 1: have raised like upwards of three million dollars. And he
Speaker 1: hasn't said officially. But some people have said to me
Speaker 1: that if I wanted to run again, based on this
Speaker 1: high profile investigation that he has of Trump, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and his in the Trump organization, that many Manhattan I's
Speaker 1: might re elect him. But it remains to be seen.
Speaker 1: He hasn't said officially one way or another. As you mentioned,
Speaker 1: the biggest prosecution and why the Manhattan d as keeps
Speaker 1: getting mentioned over and over again, in national news is
Speaker 1: because of this investigation into Trump and what maybe criminal charges.
Speaker 1: Have the candidates talked about that? Well, originally they were
Speaker 1: not speaking about it, and I think as time is progressed,
Speaker 1: they decided, especially in light of after what the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court's ruling came out last month granting the d A
Speaker 1: the right to have access to whatever eight years of
Speaker 1: tax records from Trump. Um, they are now saying things
Speaker 1: like I could take on Trump, you know, and there's
Speaker 1: they're not talking about the investigation per se, because of course,
Speaker 1: no one knows what this investigation is except for the
Speaker 1: people who are actually doing it, and so to comment
Speaker 1: on it would be they don't know the evidence. So
Speaker 1: it's not really like you can make an informed comments
Speaker 1: handicapping what the investigation is. It's all grand jury and
Speaker 1: its secret um. But some of them have have tried
Speaker 1: to put like, you know, their their street creds out there,
Speaker 1: for I could take on Trump because I sued him civilly.
Speaker 1: That's the kind of thing they've been saying now recently.
Speaker 1: It's the climb rate or the murder rate that's up
Speaker 1: in New York. Violent crime is up in New York
Speaker 1: all throughout the city, and especially there's been shootings. UH.
Speaker 1: Gun related violence is up and murders are up. So
Speaker 1: not in the last two months, but in the end
Speaker 1: of the last three months of there was a and
Speaker 1: so most of violent crimes remain on. So we were
Speaker 1: talking about this spike in crime. Are the candidates discussing
Speaker 1: that and what they're going to do about it? Actually, no,
Speaker 1: there has been. There is one candidate, Liz Krate. She
Speaker 1: is a former assistant district attorney and she went into
Speaker 1: private practice and she's a criminal defense lawyer, so she
Speaker 1: cut practices in the courthouse and she has been saying
Speaker 1: she would be for law and order, and you know,
Speaker 1: she's kind of like the lone voice. And many of
Speaker 1: these other UH candidates have spent the majority of their
Speaker 1: time during these discussions talking about more progressive reforms, the
Speaker 1: kinds of crimes, low level crimes they wouldn't prosecute. Most
Speaker 1: of them are talking about, you know, fair beating or
Speaker 1: turnstyle jumping for example, or low level marijuana possession that
Speaker 1: they wouldn't prosecute. Some of the candidates are saying they
Speaker 1: would never bring cases of gang cases against involving juveniles,
Speaker 1: but underside vance having prosecutions for certain minor crimes like
Speaker 1: fair jumping, etcetera also fallen. Yes, and and and some
Speaker 1: people have pointed out to me when Vance took office,
Speaker 1: he was considered a progressive that wanted to cut the offices,
Speaker 1: you know, cut back on the kinds of cases they're brought.
Speaker 1: Some people say, of course, as you're very progressive, you
Speaker 1: have you know he's not. He never did enough. He
Speaker 1: should never have prosecuted any cases. But if people need
Speaker 1: to remember that, you know, he's basically reigned in prosecutions
Speaker 1: of low level crime. UM. There was one instance, UH
Speaker 1: of the forum I covered recently that was UM sponsored
Speaker 1: by former veterans of the Manhattan DA's office, where they
Speaker 1: wanted to hear closely questioned some of the candidates and
Speaker 1: where do you stand on on these topics and UM.
Speaker 1: One of the candidates was Karate. When I was mentioning before,
Speaker 1: she said, what are you guys talking about? How can
Speaker 1: you decline to bring these cases? They're on the books,
Speaker 1: they're you know, they're part of the law. You can,
Speaker 1: as a d A abdicate the responsibility to prosecute crimes.
Speaker 1: She said, She's going to do it on a case
Speaker 1: by case basis, but some of the candidates had said
Speaker 1: they will never have vowed, never ever ever to bring
Speaker 1: low level crimes. Two of the candidates, lawyer named Hanni
Speaker 1: Abushi who is a civil rights lawyer, and another lawyer
Speaker 1: has said that they would cut the footprint of the
Speaker 1: office in half and then they would give the money
Speaker 1: instead of hiring prosecutors, They get rid of the prosecutors
Speaker 1: and hired defense lawyers or public defenders and replace them.
Speaker 1: So instead of prosecuting people, they look at ways not
Speaker 1: to prosecute them, and then they spread that money around
Speaker 1: to community groups instead of using it for prosecution. So
Speaker 1: they want to defund their own office. Yes, yes, and
Speaker 1: five of them have said they're in favor of defunding
Speaker 1: the police. And it remains to be seen. I asked
Speaker 1: a couple of people, you know, it's Manhattan, this progressive,
Speaker 1: that there are they willing to go this far? And
Speaker 1: there have been other cities like l A County elected
Speaker 1: uh this guy, George Gascon on a progressive agenda, and
Speaker 1: now his own the Union of Prosecutors, the Assistant District
Speaker 1: Attorney's union that works for him have sued him to
Speaker 1: get him to stop in acting some of these what
Speaker 1: the pieces are reformed, but they say are too progressive,
Speaker 1: you know, measures that are not enforcing the law. So
Speaker 1: it becomes like quite a struggle. The l A. D
Speaker 1: A's office, the San Francisco Day's office is seeing that
Speaker 1: same kind of push and pull of tension. Basically, then
Speaker 1: you would be going into office and firing a lot
Speaker 1: of your staff. Yeah, and one of the candidates has vowed.
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg, the candidate that's the former Deputy Attorney General
Speaker 1: of the State of New York and a former assistant
Speaker 1: U S Attorney in Manhattan, he said that he would
Speaker 1: like to review the cases done by Linda Fairstein. Now
Speaker 1: she was in office for decades and Linda Fairstein came
Speaker 1: under fire for being the supervisor in the Central Park case.
Speaker 1: Morgan Thau exonerated them after years after a review of information.
Speaker 1: So I mean that might mean hundreds and hundreds of
Speaker 1: cases that not only did Fairsteeing maybe prosecute, but then
Speaker 1: as a supervisor, how far back to you go if
Speaker 1: she was just the boss? But you know ten steps
Speaker 1: below was a prosecution of the case. How do you
Speaker 1: do a review of that? You know, some of these
Speaker 1: things people have pointed out would be very difficult to
Speaker 1: do and also exhaustive. And what happens when crime is spiking?
Speaker 1: Do you deal with the old crimes and review everything
Speaker 1: the finance US comb or do you or with a
Speaker 1: microscope or how far back do you go? And then
Speaker 1: you're dealing with this ongoing problem of if crime is rising,
Speaker 1: do you not prosecute those cases? And how what happens
Speaker 1: with deterrence because some people argue, you know, part of
Speaker 1: the deterrence is prosecuting people so they understand the ramifications
Speaker 1: of committing a crime. Once you start investigating and opening
Speaker 1: cases up, then defense lorries are going to come and
Speaker 1: start attacking other cases. It's it seems like it's would
Speaker 1: open up a huge cycle and a huge problem. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean there's that too. I mean some of these
Speaker 1: measures are progressive and they're good, but you know, Farmer
Speaker 1: prosecutors pointed out to me that, you know, last year
Speaker 1: there were hundreds of people arrested during the Black Lives
Speaker 1: Matter protests in Manhattan, and aside from the ones that
Speaker 1: actually broke into like a SOHO Channel store or and
Speaker 1: looted the place, they were caught for burglary there in
Speaker 1: the store, and they're caught on video tape or something,
Speaker 1: or surveillance tape. Those people got prosecuted, but the vast
Speaker 1: majority Dance dismissed the cases against them, and the judges
Speaker 1: didn't go along with that, and one of the judges
Speaker 1: ordered everybody to be helped, but the d A dropped
Speaker 1: his cases and and then Dance got a lot of
Speaker 1: criticism for that. Oh, you're too soft on crime, and
Speaker 1: these demonstrators should be prosecuted. So Manhattan Nights have a
Speaker 1: real decision to make of who they want. You know,
Speaker 1: do they want a progressive or super progressive, a moderate progressive,
Speaker 1: or do they want someone that is vowing to follow
Speaker 1: the law and prosecute people. There are a couple of candidates,
Speaker 1: like Diana Florence is the former assistant District Attorney in
Speaker 1: the office, and she has twenty five years of experience,
Speaker 1: and she says she wants to proceute crimes of power,
Speaker 1: like I said. Liz Crawdy has said that she would
Speaker 1: uh the white collar and neats to be a priority
Speaker 1: back to the heyday of Mr Morgan now because the
Speaker 1: office shouldn't just be focusing on the poor you know
Speaker 1: as crimes of poverty and crimes people commit because they
Speaker 1: don't have money, but they should possibly go after what's
Speaker 1: going on in the corporate srates. So she's promised to
Speaker 1: return to more traditional UH and and bigger cases. Lucy
Speaker 1: Lang is a former prosecutor in the office as well,
Speaker 1: and she's part of a program of what was director
Speaker 1: of a program that was doing like a lot of
Speaker 1: innovative work at Quney John Jay's UH School of Criminal Justice.
Speaker 1: They were trying to design non jail alternatives and different,
Speaker 1: you know, alternatives to prosecution for those kinds of crimes.
Speaker 1: Let's say a juvenile and it was an initial offender
Speaker 1: and rather than get prosecuted, there could be some alternative
Speaker 1: to justice program. So some of them are thinking or
Speaker 1: offering very unique, unusual programs that I be seen as
Speaker 1: progressive in another realm. But now you know, there are
Speaker 1: very uber, uber progressives that are saying the fund the
Speaker 1: police never arrest anybody, No, I will never prosecute mistermeor crime.
Speaker 1: Some of them have made that claim. What I found
Speaker 1: really surprising is that you don't need that many votes.
Speaker 1: Out of the eight hundred sixty thousand registered Democrats in
Speaker 1: and you don't need that many votes to win, and
Speaker 1: you don't because look they're all Democratic candidates and uh
Speaker 1: Vance when he was running against two opponents, he needed
Speaker 1: less than like fifty votes to win because of the
Speaker 1: fact that not that many people actually go vote. So
Speaker 1: if a voter turnout is poor, a person could possibly
Speaker 1: win this race because there's eight candidates and of course
Speaker 1: their votes would get deluded, so you could win with
Speaker 1: fewer than thirty thousand votes. So does that mean that
Speaker 1: the people who are getting the more campaign contributions have
Speaker 1: an edge or you have two of them who have
Speaker 1: raised over a million dollars. The thing about it is
Speaker 1: that pandemic is making it difficult for doing polling. So
Speaker 1: some people have said, you know, this is basically a
Speaker 1: guest amount of who is who's leading in the polls
Speaker 1: and they haven't done that much advertising. But somebody who
Speaker 1: like Telly Farhati and Weinstein who's the wife of the
Speaker 1: fund manager Boas Weinstein, she's raised two point three million,
Speaker 1: and Alvin Bragg he's raised like one point three million.
Speaker 1: One of the candidates, Eliza Orleans, is a public defender
Speaker 1: and she's one of the people that's very vociferously saying
Speaker 1: she would be cutting back the power of the office
Speaker 1: and putting progressive reforms in. She's the one that wants
Speaker 1: to replace prosecutors with defense lawyers. She's got a lot
Speaker 1: high media presence because she's a former Survivor, TV show
Speaker 1: star are uh and the Great Race star, so she's uh,
Speaker 1: she's raised money and she's got But somebody was pointing
Speaker 1: out just because you're popular in a place like, you know,
Speaker 1: a different state like Wyoming, doesn't mean that person can
Speaker 1: vote in Manhattan. So they could possibly we could start
Speaker 1: seeing ads being purchased by this with this money. Is
Speaker 1: there going to be a debate? Well, there have been
Speaker 1: these forms, which you can imagine with eight candidates. I mean,
Speaker 1: in my years I've usually covered a d a race
Speaker 1: where it's two people running to having several debates. We're
Speaker 1: in the middle of a pandemic where people can't go
Speaker 1: to the ninety Street why and sit in the audience
Speaker 1: and then go up to the mic and ask their questions.
Speaker 1: So these have been more static where you have eight
Speaker 1: people each giving their spin and a moderator asking the questions.
Speaker 1: But they're not necessarily the same kind of follow up
Speaker 1: that would we would. We're more used to scene and
Speaker 1: it's in a real debate, so it's a little bit artificial,
Speaker 1: and it's a little bit like people can say what
Speaker 1: they want to say and maybe not necessarily answer the
Speaker 1: question that was actually posed to them. Thanks Pat. That's
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. I'm June Grosse and you're
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg