[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg is my first guest today. We now know he won't be fired by the Governor on day one, as Lee Zeldin had promised to do if he was elected Governor, despite Bragg being elected over his Republican opponent last year with more than 80% of the vote. DA Bragg has since written an op-ed in the Daily News with his own take on how he was used in the campaign.

He also gets into how he will try to make Manhattan safer going forward. We'll talk about the campaign past and moves by the DA now, including who he is prosecuting, who he is exonerating and more. There's some Trump news this week from him as well. DA Bragg, thanks for coming on with us. Welcome back to WNYC.

DA Alvin Bragg: Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it. Good morning to you.

Brian Lehrer: You point out in your op-ed that you were elected last year with 83% of the vote, Governor Hochul won Manhattan with almost the exact same landslide, number 82%. You don't need to be a statistics major to conclude that the people of Manhattan voted against firing the Manhattan DA. How much do you feel, personally, vindicated by the outcome in the borough.

DA Alvin Bragg: Manhattan voters are astute, the rhetoric during the campaign was sobering and discouraging taking us back to Willie Horton era politics. I know Manhattan voters well, we've been out and about I've lived here for almost about 50 years now. Encouraging to see the response, but more broadly our body politic both throughout our state and nationally. It's sobering and discouraging that we are still seeing what we saw during the campaign, so I guess mixed emotions, if you will.

Brian Lehrer: You used a very charged historical reference there that you didn't use in the op-ed, Willie Horton. Will you go a little deeper into that?

DA Alvin Bragg: Sure. I know you have astute listenership, so we'll call that time period and the ad there and how really race was weaponized. Look, we have significant public safety issues in Manhattan, in the state and nationally. I know that I'm living them. I raised my family here. As I said, I've been here all 49 of my years, but we've got to talk about them in a sober fact driven way and about reality.

If you looked at those ads, which I tried to not watch, but they were appeared to be ubiquitous there were times when I was the only Black face. One has to ask whether that was intentional, whether what the message being sent was. I know we have serious issues, but we need to talk about. Let's talk about the relationship. Let's talk about the Supreme Court decision and the access to guns. Let's talk about the increase in hate crimes. Let's talk about sex crimes. Let's talk about the work we're doing in the office every day and not just have wrote tropes from years gone by.

Brian Lehrer: You wrote in the op-ed that, well, no, I think I'll pass that question, that I wrote and go on to another one, because Zeldin lost by 70 points in Manhattan, but he came within just a few points of winning statewide. I wonder if you've thought about the alternative scenario that might have played out, if he had gotten just a few more votes, relatively, he might well have become Governor, but still lost by, say, 50 or 60 points in Manhattan, and then try to remove you against the will of the voters in your jurisdiction.

I'm only speculating, but I imagine he would've had to find a way to wriggle out of that campaign promise to fire you. Because it just would've been too dictator-like to throw out the will of the people with those numbers, and maybe even other Republicans would've seen it that way. It would've been a huge deal that people would've made over thwarting electoral democracy. Have you thought about how it would've played out?

DA Alvin Bragg: I will say haven't given a lot of thought because it didn't happen, and so we've been prospective in thinking about the work. I don't know what he would've done. I certainly agree with the premise of your question. It would've been anti-democratic. It would've been authoritarian. I would say though we have to put it in the context of our broader national politics. We have to put it in the context of January 6th. We have to put it in the context of rampant unsupported assertions about voter fraud. We have to put in the context of voter suppression, and so I don't know that he wouldn't have attempted to do it, and that's scary. As a general matter, I'm focused on Manhattan and safety in Manhattan, and not more broadly on the issues I just mentioned.

One also has to wonder whether or not Lee Zeldin was thinking about the fact that we just charged Steve Bannon that we're in the middle of a very consequential trial against the Trump organization and that we have a broader investigation concerning the former President. I think you put all that together and it really, really, really is alarming. We are in a troubling space with our body politic, and I think we all need to be focused on that.

Brian Lehrer: It's not just Lee Zeldin and you, though, there is pressure on other progressive DAs around the country. Now, as you know, there's the impeachment of Larry Krasner, who's a white progressive DA in Philadelphia, though it looks like the state Senate will not remove him from office, impeached but not removed. Probably most notably, Chesa Boudin was recalled by the voters of San Francisco, a very Democratic Party city who would certainly have rejected Lee Zeldin as well, the voters there. Do you need to rethink all of you the balance in some way? Maybe it's the balance between incarceration and decarceration as priorities or something like that in this rising crime era?

DA Alvin Bragg: I can't speak as directly to San Francisco and Philadelphia other than I think you're right, particularly in Pennsylvania, which is more recent, I followed with legislators outside of Philadelphia, and their Larry Krasner has been twice voted in. I'll note the data showing that the Black neighborhoods that the people who don't live in Philadelphia are claiming to be concerned about the violence that's where his biggest voter margins were.

Brian Lehrer: Same in New York, by the way. I've talked about this on the show before. When you look at the heat map of how intensely certain neighborhoods voted for Hochul or Zeldin, it's almost a straight line between the highest crime neighborhoods voting the most against Lee Zeldin and his campaign.

DA Alvin Bragg: Brian, thanks for noting that. What I think that I have to do is to focus folks on the work that we're doing. I'm a career prosecutor and civil rights lawyer, that's what I know how to do. What I'm learning to do and do better is we got to educate the public on what we're doing. That's why part where I wrote that op-ed, so people need to know that our gun prosecutions are up 20%.

People need to know that our hate crimes prosecutions are up 24% more than last year, 215% more than 2019. They need to know the work we're doing on sex crimes. They also need to know we just started a housing unit because affordable housing is a real issue and that instability affects crime. Investigating landlords who are harassing tenants out of their space is also a public safety issue.

That's part of the reason why I wrote the op-ed. I was brought into the gubernatorial race. I didn't want to further inject myself. I waited to after, but I think it's incumbent on me. It's the first time I've been elected, and I know how to do the work. I've been doing the work for 20-plus years and been living the public safety issues for 49 years. The lesson I take away, Brian, is I've got to get better about telling the public what we're doing.

Gun enforcement up 20% hate crime up 24%. Importantly, in Manhattan, homicides, and shootings down year to date and down further than the citywide decline. That's what I've got to do. It's part of the reason I'm so happy that you've got me on today, so I can talk to your audience about these issues.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we can take a few questions directly from you for Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or tweet a question @BrianLehrer. Before we go on to some other things I want to hear more about that housing crimes unit, we'll talk about your Trump investigation, legal cannabis versus illegal cannabis. I think it's going to be a rising issue with the first dispensary licenses being given out.

Before we get off the question of rising crime, as people usually think of it, and your responsibility at this moment, you do acknowledge in the op-ed that crimes, other than murders and shootings, are up in the city nearly 30% compared to last year. There's also the recidivism rate. Now, Mayor Adams and the NYPD released some eyebrow-raising statistics in August.

I'm going to read from a CNN version and then play a clip of the mayor and get your reaction. The story says, "Adams and police officials say 211 defendants were arrested at least three times for burglary through June of this year. For shoplifting, 899 people were arrested three times through June, nearly 25% of people arrested for burglary committed another felony within 60 days compared with just 8% 5 years ago. the city's worst of the worst recidivists, as they call them, include an offender with 101 career arrests, 88 of them since 2020." Here's the mayor from August 3rd.

[start of audio playback]

Mayor Adams: As a result of this insane broken system, our recidivism rates have skyrocketed. Those who say that the predictive waiver of recidivism wouldn't happen, and the studies that claim to show, that the rate of arrests for violent felonies has not changed since the reforms were passed, I have one word for you, wrong. You are wrong.

[end of audio playback]

Brian Lehrer: The mayor in August. DA Bragg, what's your thought about that as a DA? Do these kinds of recidivism rates and extreme examples, 88 arrests since 2020 for one person who then keeps getting released, suggest that the moment needs to be addressed differently than some moment four, five years ago?

DA Alvin Bragg: Let me tell you what we're doing on this issue. As I said, obviously, it's obvious. I live in Manhattan. I've had the experience of going to the pharmacy and what I want is I've got to get a clerk to open it for me. We have, since the beginning of the year, focused on this issue. We started a small business alliance. We're meeting with small businesses. We partnered with the NYPD at the very most senior levels, paired our data, really because so we can drill into this. One of the most illuminating things we saw was, and this will put some data on what you just said is that about 15% of the people arrested for shoplifting account for more than 50% of those arrests.

Then having identified that universe, we focused on them, asked our small businesses, and then we actually ended up bringing in some larger businesses and developed a plan. An issue that doesn't get talked about a lot more broadly is an issue of discovery, the information we need to turn over to the defense in order to go ahead with the case and system-wide throughout the state we have very significant information technology issues.

We've gone to other stakeholders as a group, actually both defenders and prosecutors that we need more resources. Last year, Brian, this predates me as DA, but more than 1800 misdemeanor cases were dismissed because of discovery issues. We've been talking to the NYPD, to the mayor's [unintelligible 00:13:26]. He had a convening at Gracie Mansion on discovery and mental health, which I want to go to next in terms of how we can process these cases and be prepared to go forward and litigate them in a just manner.

We've been doing that and focusing on the most active recidivists, but I also want to be clear that we're not going to prosecute ourselves out of this. Prosecution is a piece of it, but for anyone who's been around for a while and they've seen someone who's been arrested and goes to Rikers for 30 days or 60 days or something and gets out and comes right back to the same location and does the same thing without the underlying issues addressed. For those who are being opportunistic to make money, that's one thing, but for those who are, I think we see this in a very acute way now that, in particular, mental health issues are driving this. We need to be investing more in our mental health system.

We've been doing that in the DA's office. We've started a new division to invest in diversion and invest in mental health capabilities. We've been talking to the courts and other stakeholders about expanding that. We'll have more to say on that in the weeks to come. I would say our discovery technology and our mental health components are going to help us better address that, but we see it as a significant issue and since that clip, we've gotten feedback from how we're doing at least in [unintelligible 00:14:59] meeting was said some of the most significant folks in the space in Manhattan south had been addressed.

It's an ongoing issue. It's an important issue. The other thing that maybe, I know I didn't say the last thing yet. Maybe it's the last thing on this thing, this subject. The other issue that we're doing that, hopefully, there's more to come on is I'm a very significant believer, and you got to follow the money and you to follow the contraband. I've been doing that for 20 years in cases.

The money in the contraband leads you to the most culpable people. You hold them accountable, and you can get more enduring public safety benefits. We have a number of investigations into fencing. People who are taking this, there's a secondary market and if we can turn the spigot off to that market, I think the people who are doing it in the opportunistic way to make money, we can really have a dent in that.

That's what we're working on, discovery and moving cases faster and focusing on the recidivist population, mental health to really try to end the cycle, and then fencing investigations, which will, hopefully, make those who are doing this at a high level, the transaction cost, they don't think they've priced in the prospect of criminal prosecution. I think that should have a significant deterring effect when we're able to bring those cases down.

Brian Lehrer: Really interesting. Thanks for that thorough description. Virginia, in the West Village, you're on WNYC with Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. Hi, Virginia.

Virginia: Hi, great. Hi, thank you so much. Hey, there's something I just cannot stop thinking about, and it is, is there a relationship in the data between increasing crime or just crime, in general, in New York and the relationship with that and the loss of affordable housing especially looking at the amount of affordable housing that's been lost due to predatory landlords, through the Bronx and Harlem?

I'm wondering when someone is arrested as a sidebar to that, when someone's arrested, are they asked about their housing situation or whether their housing has increased, doubled, tripled recently, or in the past few years because it just seems to me there's got to be a relationship between people having to spend two and three times more on rent and crime?

Brian Lehrer: Virginia, thank you. DA Bragg?

DA Alvin Bragg: That is a phenomenally interesting question, to which I do not have a research-based answer. One thing that we're doing on a number of our initiatives are we are partnering with researchers so that we can test the efficacy of what we're doing. I just took a note to try to figure out how to put that into a question to our research partners. I think that what I can say is that certainly qualitatively, there's a correlation.

I certainly see that we see in areas with more housing instability that we see higher crime rates. For me, growing up in Central Harlem, certainly, that matches my personal experience and my professional introduction to this was-- Actually, the last case I tried as a federal prosecutor was a mortgage fraud trial that was the last financial bubble. You could almost see it on display with some of the witnesses. Identities had been stolen.

This was a sham mortgage closing case, but it first led me to think about the ripple effects on the community, this mortgage fraud scheme, and these properties that have been stolen and identity stolen, and then the effect on those people's lives. Then when I was at the Attorney General's office, we did tenant harassment cases. That provided for me the blueprint for what we're launching here. I'll just tell you about the case we brought last month, the 421(a) affordable housing program, tax rebate to developers, tax breaks. We're prosecuting a number of developers who got those tax benefits.

In exchange for that, they were supposed to provide affordable housing. Instead, we allege the housing was exorbitant. That certainly has an effect in my qualitative experience on the neighborhoods, the people affected, and I think we've seen some of that recently coming out of the dislocations of COVID of recently new homeless population. I'm going to take that research question to our research partners so that, hopefully, next time we talk, I'll have a scientific answer, but those are my thoughts. Brian, if you allow me to maybe just plug the number for our housing unit because we are-

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead.

DA Alvin Bragg: -actively taking complaints.

Brian: Absolutely.

DA Alvin Bragg: It's 212-335-8900, a unit that we started in October.

Brian Lehrer: When should people call that number, with what kinds of complaints about their landlords?

DA Alvin Bragg: Thank you so much, Brian, because when we announce this, we stood side by side with others in this space. We are very fortunate, in Manhattan and New York more broadly to have, legal services, lawyers who are doing housing civil cases and going into tenant housing court. This is just going to complement their work. We are looking at systemic abuses and systemic fraud.

If there's a one issue with your landlord, maybe legal aid or a civil service provider, but we're looking at a landlord who systematically is not doing repairs to make the tenant's lives more challenging and ultimately to move them out. A landlord who, across an entire building, is not doing required lead abatement thereby creating hazardous conditions for occupants, particularly youth. Systematic ongoing, harassment and fraud is the focus of the unit

Brian Lehrer: Changing subjects. You made news yesterday by dropping charges in a case that had drawn protestors to the defendant's cause. The case of Tracy McCarter, a nurse from the Upper West side who as some of our listeners know, was arrested in 2020 for fatally stabbing her husband. The defense was that she was a domestic violence victim and it was self-defense. Her supporters still criticize you for taking so long to let her off the hook after you made a campaign promise to do so when you were running more than a year ago. Why does that kind of judgment by your office take this long after you were sworn in in January?

DA Alvin Bragg: I'm somewhat constrained because it's still an active case. We have a court date next week. In that situation, we need to say what we're going to say in court, but I think I can say what was already said in the letter. I'll start with what you said going back to the campaign. I made a general assertion about survivors in the context of Ms. McCarter's case.

I'm prepared to concede was one that was meant to be a broad statement, but I certainly can see and take accountability for it, doing it in the context of that case which in retrospect, I would not have done. Then when I came into office, I do what I've done for the past 20 years, which is look at evidence and review evidence and meet with people on the team in the letter, which we've submitted to the court, which is the public document.

I can talk about it a bit. We talk about the procedural history. Earlier this year there were some plea negotiations which would've ended the case with a non-counsel outcome. The parties agreed that the plea was deemed illegal by the court. Then later there was motion practice brought by us to in effect lower the charge. This is something that's gotten attention throughout the year and from the highest levels of the office, including me. We did make application last week, a letter that was submitted indicating that, given the current posture, which is a murder charge, which was brought prior to me being DA.

Basically, going forward, the murder charge or not going, that being the binary choice here asking the court to dismiss the case. In light of my decision that I don't-- I have a reasonable doubt as to that charge. Can't really say much more than that because going to be in court. Don't want to prejudice it and want be as an officer of the court respectful and mindful, and save anything beyond that for the court.

Brian Lehrer: Peter, in Manhattan, you're on WNYC with the Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. Hi, Peter.

Peter: Hi. Good morning. Mr. Bragg, let me ask you, the status of the prosecution against Sir. Donald Trump. Was that dropped because the evidence against him wasn't strong enough in spite of two years worth of prosecution research by two lifelong prosecutors?

Brian Lehrer: Well, I'm not sure the premise is accurate that it was dropped. Give us an update on the status of your Trump investigation. Obviously, I realize there are constraints because it's an ongoing investigation.

DA Alvin Bragg: [unintelligible 00:24:42]  but Brian, I think you hit the nail on the head. We released a statement in April that our investigation into the former president is active and ongoing. I know there's been some recent reporting and speculation about what our focus may be in. I think some saying, oh, they're looking at it again, or it's jump-started. The truth of the matter is that, we never stopped. That's what we said in April. I know there were some who maybe had their doubts. I will say again, I've been doing this for some time and been doing it in high-profile cases. Maybe take a moment and pause and say why we don't talk publicly.

Which, Brian, I know you know but maybe some may not, which is, it could prejudice the outcome. Particularly now we're in the middle of a Trump organization trial, it's an ongoing trial not related to this specific question, I don't think. A future prosecution that could be brought could be prejudiced by something I say. Then I have an ethical co obligation, as a lawyer not to discuss, things that aren't in the public domain. What I can say, if I could just on this because obviously others who worked on this have spoken and people have talked about their background and what they've done.

I think I'm probably the only lawyer in the country who can say, we are right now, prosecuting a criminal case against the Trump organization. When I was in leadership at AG's office, we did the Trump University case. When I was in leadership at AG's office, I led the Trump Foundation team. More broadly than that, going wherever the facts have taken me throughout my career.

Whether that's a senate majority leader, a city council member, a party leader, an FBI agent, a sitting district attorney, and have gone there with legal and, professionalism and follow the facts. That's what we said in April and I know there were some folks who doubted. I think now some recent reporting has people scratching their heads and saying, oh, well, maybe they were. I can't comment on that reporting or going say, yes, we've been following the facts and doing our jobs the way I've been doing it for my entire career.

Brian Lehrer: Just so people know, they'll take your no comment there as the answer. If I were to pose this as a question, we have multiple news organizations reporting. When The Times and The Post have the same story through unnamed sources. It might even be true that you're ramping up the investigation into Donald Trump possibly paying illegal hush money to Stormy Daniels for the sake of his presidential campaign regarding their alleged extramarital affair. Any comment other than no comment?

DA Alvin Bragg: I'll rest on what I just said on my April comment.

Brian Lehrer: Ok, got you. I want to touch two things briefly in our remaining three minutes, if I can squeeze them in. Last week, I see you move to dismiss 188 misdemeanor cases, some as old as from 20 years ago. Cases tied to eight police officers who were later found to have committed official misconduct or been discredited in other ways, who you said abused their positions of power. The Times article on this says you're looking at over 1100 convictions connected to 20 tainted cops overall. With those numbers, how much do you say it's a bad apples problem and how much a systemic problem, there were 30,000 cops, that should make people wary of the police?

DA Alvin Bragg: Brian, as and maybe some of your listeners know, I've spent a lot of time in this area. I've previously represented members of Eric Garner's family in a lawsuit against the city seeking transparency. Was appointed a special prosecutor at the AG's office to investigate cases where there were deaths caused by police conduct. This is something that's of deep interest to me. I do think that, I can certainly say would work with NYPD every day and side by side with professionalism focused on violent crime.

When we have instances like this, and this is disturbing. You said it's 20 officers, and we're talking about, convictions in some instances for very serious conduct going directly to truth-telling. This is public safety work too. I've been in a room, and I've had friends, and I've had periods in my own life. Where the policing encounters have affected my interaction with the system and the perception of it.

I've sat in a room in a proffer where someone said, I'm not going to tell you because I don't trust the system. We have certainly that kind of issue to address. I think this work helps with that to say, look, whoever you are, police officer, I'll include, lawyers in that as well, public servants, we have to hold folks accountable. That's our job and I think that advances community trust, which, in turn, helps us do our work of witnesses and victims, feeling more comfortable coming forward to us.

Brian Lehrer: Systemic or bad apples?

DA Alvin Bragg: I think that there's, those are kind of flat choices. Not to quibble with the premise. I mean, a bad apple suggests that it's a one-off. I think this number you don't want to say one-off and minimize it. I do think what we have and also maybe broaden the issue, I think in terms of the truth-telling and these kinds of significant convictions here, these are outliers. I do think we have to think fundamentally about how we're approaching the work.

As I said, we are every day focusing on accountability in the moment, the violent crime I talked about; hate crimes, sex crimes, homicide, shooting, but it's also clear that, systematically, we are not going to, and again, I include prosecutors in this, get out of this moment or have enduring public safety benefits without the investments that go beyond or at least go into the soft powers of prosecutors and police, mental health investments, the gun grants we did this summer to youth organizations, who are affecting gun violence and are doing things that a prosecutor and police officer can't do.

In fact, this is maybe a bit of a tangent, but I'll connect it in terms of what we can do versus what community can do and how we can work together. We had a case recently involving significant violence that we investigated, and we brought charges. There was a set of people, mostly younger people, who were adjacent, there was no charge to bring against them. Previously, law enforcement say, "Okay, well, that's it," but we knew that if we didn't do anything, we would see those names in two years on our next indictment.

We reached out to our community partners and we did a quiet handoff and said, "Look at these folks." I use that as an example to say, there are limits to what police and prosecutors can do, and we've got to be creative and leverage our community resources to really, really address safety in a holistic way. That may have gone a little bit further than the bounds of your question, but I think it's broadly relevant.

Brian Lehrer: No, I appreciate your thoughtful and in-depth answers throughout this conversation today. There's a lot of histrionics when people talk about Alvin Bragg, you are obviously not a history on a guy. Can I stretch for one more quickie? I know we're past our official end time. If you're not actually running on to another interview or something, just real briefly, and because you mentioned Eric Garner, legal versus illegal cannabis, as the first official dispensary licenses have been given out, but there are all these illegal smoke shops, or smoke shops selling Black market weed.

Just thinking of the awful Eric Garner death as police were arresting him, the crime was selling loose cigarettes, unfair competition for the local legit stores, and yet we want these new dispensaries to have a fighting chance. Is there a dilemma there? Or what are you going to do about all the smoke shops when the legal dispensaries go online?

DA Alvin Bragg: I think you just framed it so aptly, it is a significant regulatory issue. I think much of it is regulatory and civil, and not in the criminal space, and we're in this gray zone. Right now, I know that we've been coordinating and in touch with those that are on the frontlines, the sheriff's office, which has civil oversight of any place selling tobacco products. I know the City Hall has done some towing of some of the vehicular cannabis outlets.

For me, again, mindful of the issues you just flagged, equity and police committee interactions, the two sub-areas that I think about in terms of criminal enforcement that we need to be mindful of our youth sales, we need to really be thinking about, and I'm not suggesting in all ways it would be criminal, but that's an area that I think we need to really be making sure that robust civil enforcement and it made clear that we can't, as we've seen in some other markets like this, prey upon our youth, and then driving.

The driving while impaired, I think we really need to significantly look at that and put measures in place to police. Those are the two areas that I think about. I think the others that you just mentioned, which are significant issues as well, we've been interacting with the sheriff's office and others who are engaged in civil and administrative regulatory oversight enforcement.

Brian Lehrer: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. Thanks as always. Happy Thanksgiving.

DA Alvin Bragg: You as well. Thank you.

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.