[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg is with us. DA Bragg is even more in the news than usual right now between the Mangione case, the Penny case, the Trump hush money conviction which the judge in that case has now kept alive. There was last week's indictment of Mayor Adams' top aide. Now over the weekend, the highest ranking uniformed officer in the NYPD, Jeffrey Maddrey, who had the title chief of department, resigned amid allegations that he demanded sexual favors multiple times in the last year from a lieutenant who works under his command in exchange for massive amounts of overtime. There's even more than that. DA bragg, we always appreciate when you come on with us. I guess we have enough to talk about today, huh?

DA Alvin Bragg: I will go wherever you take the discussion. It is great to be back on, Brian. Great to talk with you. I always love talking with your listeners. Good morning.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we can take a few questions for DA Alvin Bragg from you. You can call or text, 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Let's start with the newest news, the Geoffrey Maddrey investigation. What's your role in that?

DA Alvin Bragg: Very, very disturbing allegations, obviously. Our role is the same as it would be for any allegation like that in Manhattan. We have very good Special Victims Division of career prosecutors who focus on this, know how to do trauma-informed investigations. We will conduct exhaustive investigation into these facts. As my office does, we're not going to prejudge anything, but also we'll go over wherever the facts take us without fear or favor.

Brian Lehrer: According to the New York Post, the new police commissioner, Jessica Tisch, removed the head of the internal affairs division on Saturday. The Post says, "Commissioner Tisch has spent much of December breaking up the so called boys club within the NYPD and forcing out the head of its Internal Affairs Bureau for his shoddy handling of the Maddrey case," as the Post describes it. Are you also conducting any patterns and practices investigation into the NYPD or considering that, like a systemic pattern of enabling bad or even criminal police misconduct that goes beyond this one case?

DA Alvin Bragg: We are looking at the allegations that many of us read about on Friday. We have a police accountability unit that's done a number of cases over the years. In terms of the things that you're talking about, I have a lot of confidence in our commissioner. We've been in touch a lot over-- You mentioned at the Top the Mangione matter and some other matters. She's doing what a new CEO does, is evaluating the organization, and so defer to her on that. I will say, just from my interactions with her the last month and before that, even when she was sanitation commissioner, she is a phenomenal leader, and I look forward to working with her more.

Brian Lehrer: I guess my question is the US Justice Department sometimes looks at patterns and practices, Ferguson, Missouri, other cases, and comes out with a report on that after one particular incident brings what the New York Post seems to be describing as a pattern in this case to light, but no plans to do that?

DA Alvin Bragg: So the authority that you're talking about, and as I think you know, Brian, they've done a fair amount of police accountability work over the years. That work is housed at the Department of Justice in the Civil Rights Division. It is a civil function. Those are civil investigations. They're not criminal. We're focused on public safety. Obviously, there's a pattern of criminal conduct, wherever it may be, we'll investigate. The authority you're talking about is civil authority vested in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice in DC.

Brian Lehrer: Just one more question on this case. Do you think Mayor Adams might be a subject of the investigation here in that he is sounding tough on Maddrey the last few days since the resignation, but he gave him this total support as recently as October when other questions were being raised. The mayor, of course, comes out of the NYPD, is reportedly very involved with the NYPD as mayor. I guess my question is, do you need to investigate the extent to which he may have knew about any pattern of illegal or just ethically wrong behavior by Geoffrey Maddrey and help to cover it up, especially if it was criminal or let it persist?

DA Alvin Bragg: We're sitting here on day two. I'm certainly not going to publicly comment on what the path of investigation may be, nor will we prejudge it. What we do, and I mentioned our extraordinarily talented Special Victims Division, but we do it across the office. We rigorously and vigorously assess facts and we investigate, and we go where the facts take us. Rarely, and I know sometimes it's to the frustration of the media and others, will we talk about that publicly at any point prior to a charge? Certainly, this in the infancy of an investigation, I think all good investigators, but certainly here at the Manhattan DA's office we just assess and take in and rigorously look at. That's where we are now. I'm not really in a position to tell you anything on where it may go.

Brian Lehrer: I understand. Also on the mayor, your office indicted his top aide Ingrid Lewis-Martin on corruption charges last week, and she resigned too, continuing the exodus of top aides to the mayor. I know you're limited in what you can say about ongoing cases, as you just indicated, but for our listeners who don't know the basics, what is Ingrid Lewis-Martin accused of?

DA Alvin Bragg: I can certainly talk about what's in the indictment. The indictment alleges a long running bribery, money laundering and conspiracy scheme, basically alleging that she used her position and authority to get money in exchange for influencing city decisions. Specifically, the indictment alleges-- The alleged quid pro quo includes allegations of pushing past the Department of Buildings expertise on construction projects and pushing things through helping her son with a Chick-fil-A franchise and also a clothing franchise in exchange for, we allege, more than $100,000, some of which was used to buy a 2023 Porsche.

Brian Lehrer: The mayor's indictment was brought by the federal government, you at the level of Manhattan DA indicted as top aide. Why the difference in jurisdiction? Just curious.

DA Alvin Bragg: That's a very good question, Brian. Not that the others were not good questions, but as someone who served as a federal prosecutor and as a state prosecutor now here at the Manhattan DA's office, sometimes things are just a matter of what office brings the charge. Here our case is bribery and money laundering and conspiracy charge, which are state charges.

There may be federal analogs for that, but it's one where the nature of the law and the two jurisdictions and things can be brought, as we've seen in other matters, as both a federal and a state. It may be that the conduct charge here could have been a federal charge. I do think that the federal charge, I don't want to talk about it too much because it's not my case and I don't know it, but the receipt of foreign monies is something that is in and of itself distinctly a federal focus.

Brian Lehrer: Similar question with Luigi Mangione, actually. He's facing federal and now local New York state charges brought by you. He officially pleaded not guilty in your lower Manhattan courtroom just this morning. Why charge at both levels, and who goes first?

DA Alvin Bragg: On the Second one, the US attorney for the [unintelligible 00:08:51] New York has publicly said that it's his intent that the Manhattan case will go first. As to why we charge, it's very straightforward. As we allege, a targeted murder on a bustling Manhattan street. That's a distinct local Manhattan interest. We take every killing in Manhattan extraordinarily seriously.

For us, we were, from the onset, working hand in hand with NYPD as we would on any other shooting and killing of someone in Manhattan. Distinct Manhattan interest, working on it from the beginning. It's not infrequent that parallel federal and state charges will be brought in. The office has done this before. For example, the use of a machete on New Year's Eve against a New York police officer is one example, but there are many others of parallel federal state proceedings happening in this jurisdiction and also around the country.

Brian Lehrer: You have the word terrorism in your indictment, I believe, appropriate, in my opinion, for what it's worth, for this type of crime. If it says reported and it looks to be, but I wonder if you would say why and what the legal definition of that is that you're going by. Listeners might be interested in that.

DA Alvin Bragg: Sure. Look, in its most basic sense, we allege that the killing was a means to evoke terror. It was with that purpose in mind. The statute defines in broad terms terrorism with the purpose of intimidating or coercing of civilians or the government or a policy. We allege that this killing was done with that purpose.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call. Evan in Ridgewood, you're on WNYC. Hi, Evan.

Evan: Hey. I think my question is, obviously, people talk a lot about public safety, whether it be hate crime, stranger violence, violence on the subway. There's a lot of actors here, whether it be DAs, police and policymakers. I'm curious to know how the DA sees himself within that trifecta of actors, and what specific actions prosecutors can take to address that in contrast to police and policymakers.

Brian Lehrer: Do you have anything in mind, Evan, that you're looking for there? I'll let you go there if you have something.

Evan: I do, yes. Like a lot of other New Yorkers, I see people with mental health issues on the subway. I obviously we read stories where violence is committed by these people. I think it's a really difficult issue. I'm curious to understand how prosecutors exactly can help address that. Obviously, there are laws we need to change. Obviously, there's action from the police, but what exactly are those who are taking people to court and prosecuting people? How can they help people with mental health issues get the help they need and also help all kinds of New Yorkers feel more safe on the subway in the streets given these situations?

Brian Lehrer: Evan, thank you. DA Brad.

DA Alvin Bragg: This is an extraordinarily important issue, the mental health, and I appreciate the way the question was framed. I may take a little time with it, if you don't mind, Brian. We see our role here-- Subway was mentioned. Hate crimes were mentioned. Obviously, when someone does a violent act, we're holding folks accountable. We also are working on the prevention side. For example, hate crimes are-- Prosecutions are up 20%. Gun prosecutions are up as well. We're taking those cases and seeking accountability, working hand in hand as the police build investigations.

We are also on the prevention side. We have two programs called Navigators. One is a community navigator program. People who are trained in a certain life experiences that make them well suited are connecting with people in distress and helping connect them with services. We started that earlier in the year and we've seen the fruits of it, looking to maybe expand it. Then in August, something that potentially is transformative. We had another group position in our courtrooms.

Anytime someone leaves a courtroom or arraignment courtroom, they're asked by someone who works at Fortune Society, a reentry group, what they need. Is it housing? Is it food? Oftentimes it's housing, and they can be taken, under this program we have, straight from our courtroom to transitional housing. Why is that important? Yes, it helps that person. I heard in Evan's question, I don't think I'm over reading, I heard the concern for the individual. It's helping that individual. We are also laser focused on our public safety. It reduces recidivism. We have a lot of hope for that which is already starting to bear fruit.

We also have problem-solving courts, diversion courts, where the focus is on accountability and also connecting people to services. It could be drug services, it could be health services. We are leaning into that in particular with mental health. We added to our drug diversion mental health track because of the co-occurrence. We're seeing a lot with substance abuse and mental health.

The kicker here, the real key is the data on recidivism. It is not just stabilizing people, but the graduates of these problem-solving courts. The recidivism rates are far lower than people who are coming back from the traditional system. We see our role, once there's a case, to find accountability. That accountability in many instances is going to be traditional incarceration. In many instances where it's driven by mental health, it's going to be an intervention in our problem-solving court. Equally important, trying to be on the front foot on the prevention side.

I'll just mention one more initiative and give some credit to our others in government. We've started in a few neighborhoods and we're looking to scale it up what we call hubs. In fact, the mayor and I were out in Times Square a couple weeks ago talking about the results of the Times Square south hub, where we get multiple agencies and meeting intensely every other week. Department of Buildings to take down illegal scaffolding. Department of Health to connect with people in distress. Department of Homeless Services, and obviously, the police and my office.

We've now done that in a few neighborhoods, and I would like to do it in every neighborhood. It's obviously laborious, requires a lot from mayoral agencies, but we see the results. I think more and more of that prevention work will help with what people are seeing in terms of the disorder and the mental health. Can I mention one more thing, Brian, on this?

Brian Lehrer: You can in a minute. Let me follow up on the one you were just talking about in some detail. Mental health intervention as a matter of preventing recidivism. Mayor Adams, after the Daniel Penny verdict, was talking about that with respect to people like Jordan Neely, where the mayor feels that not enough is being done to-- or there's not a structure under the law or practices under the law to keep people who have ongoing severe mental health situations hospitalized, even against their will, for longer than maybe just 72 hours until their short-term stabilized. The mayor sees that as a cause of recidivism and something that's not being adequately addressed. I'm curious if you want structural changes to allow that or if this is, to some degree, on you.

DA Alvin Bragg: The number one thing I would say on this, and the mayor's lead person on mental health has been at our hub, certainly the one in Midtown, which I have attended. He's been there. We will literally talk about, "Joe on the southwest corner of 38th street needs help." The mayor's designee will help get that help for the person. What we talk about, and this is the current law not being applied as robustly as it could be, is that person then goes to a health care facility, and largely because of capacity, the current standard of imminent harm to oneself or another. This is done in good faith, but is applied very narrowly, like, "Is this person imminent threat in the next 30 seconds, in the next five minutes?"

They're not, and then they're released, but then they decompensate. We need to lengthen that period of time, which can be done under the current law. The real issue, the real issue, Brian, is capacity. The hospitals aren't releasing people in bad faith. These are medical professionals who want to keep us all healthy and safe. A lot of them, this is capacity. They're moving someone out of the bed to make way for the next person coming in. You said, is it my problem? I think it's all of our problem. It is a system-wide issue.

If you come down to criminal court, certainly in Manhattan, but I think in any of the boroughs, you will see the brokenness of our mental health system. These interventions to stabilize people go so far towards our safety. It's got to be the priority in the coming months. We've started the program, as I mentioned, this hub program is helpful, having the mayor's designee there. The navigator programs, our problem-solving courts. Fundamentally, it's capacity. It's capacity. We need places that are therapeutic to send folks to stabilize them for their sake, but also to address the recidivism problem we have and to advance public safety for all.

Brian Lehrer: Katherine in Manhattan has a question about the Daniel Penny case. Katherine, you're on WNYC with DA Alvin Bragg. Hi.

Katherine: Hi. Thank you. As I was telling your screener, to me, the verdict in the Daniel Penny case should have been-- He should have been found guilty of murder. If he's ever used a subway in New York--

Brian Lehrer: He was charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, just for the record. Katherine, I know what you're getting at. Go ahead.

Katherine: Yes, but he was not convicted on anything. If Penny had ever used a subway in New York, these homeless people, disturbed people go through the subway car all the time. Nobody pays attention. They burrow into their cell phones or into a paper or whatever. If it disturbs you, you leave. He did not touch anyone, that man. Penny is always referred to as Daniel Penny Marine. Being a Marine, he knows what he was doing or he should have known what he was doing, that holding someone in a chokehold to death, he killed that man. That's all I have to say.

Brian Lehrer: Katherine, thank you for your call. To be fair to what my understanding is was testified to in court, people said that what Jordan Neely was saying and doing, even without touching anybody, was not like incidents that they've seen or people that they've seen come through with mental health problems many times before. To the caller's specific question, DA Bragg, the public did hear a lot about Penny maintaining that chokehold for six minutes against his Marine training as his trainer testified, from what I read, and despite Jordan Neely having defecated in a bystander on the train warning, "You're going to kill him," you lost that case. Why do you think the jury, despite those particular pieces of evidence that the public heard so much about, the jury didn't find?

DA Alvin Bragg: Brian, it's hard to know. To Katherine as well, I appreciate all the listeners, particularly those in Manhattan, I don't know, Brian. We brought the case. We thought it was a case that should be brought. We were seeking a conviction. I have deep respect for the jury system. I've been a lawyer for a long time. I've presented a lot of cases to juries. This is our system. I think, particularly in my role, I see it every day. The jury has now spoken. Someone certainly in my seat who's asking things of juries and asking them to take a solemn obligation and to look at the facts. We defer and respect the verdict. That's how the process works, and the sanctity of the that room.

Maybe many people opining as to how the determination was made, things that should have been done, but it's the sanctity of the jury room. We deliberate behind closed doors. That's our system. I think that helps for robust exchange of ideas. We thought it was an important case to bring. We certainly thought there should have been a different outcome-- hope for a different outcome. Look at how long the jurors deliberated, their attention to detail on the notes. That's our system. I respect our system and defer to their verdict.

Brian Lehrer: It was baffling to a lot of people that the jury was hung, divided, couldn't reach a verdict on the more serious charge, manslaughter, but then acquitted him on the less serious charge. Is there any way that you make sense of that?

DA Alvin Bragg: I don't have a way of looking in and knowing what their deliberations are. I guess the one thing I would say, it's not 100% responsive, but I think it's an important point is the jurors, the protests, the invective, some before and some after. This is our system I deeply respect. We ask people to come down and serve all the time. Can you be fair and impartial? I just think we have to, even if one is disappointed with the jury, really respect the service. I would also extend that to the career public servants in my office.

During the pendency of this case, there were attacks on public servants who were just doing their job, some of whom have done it for 25 years and doing it ably and nobly and conscientiously, only to be greeted in the public square with with threats. I just think that there just would be no place for that in our dialogue. We can disagree, but the tagging people and saying things, whether it's physical harm or-- something was about people's families. It's inappropriate. I worry about that. That's part of our body politic, but I really worry about it as someone who's hiring and training and developing prosecutors.

Brian Lehrer: We've got three minutes. Let me see if we can touch three more topics very briefly, kind of a lightning round. I know these are intense topics too, so we'll do the best we can. The Trump hush money conviction, the judge in the case ruled that that stands, which means that, theoretically, if Trump serves his whole four year term and then leaves office in 2028, then he comes back for sentencing and you go back to court, if you're still the DA and argue for sentencing at that time.

DA Alvin Bragg: This is before the court. That's one of the options before the court is exactly what you said. I think the key thing on this, Brian, is what I just said in the Penny context. The core of our argument, as set out in our papers, is the sanctity of the jury system. It's the same exact point. The jury has spoken here. Obviously on this one, it is the result that we were seeking, but the fundamental point remains the same. They took an oath, they went in, they deliberated, they asked for more evidence, they had read backs notes, and they rendered a verdict. That's fundamental to our system. The sanctity of that jury roll has to be protected.

Brian Lehrer: You talk about going after jurors. My understanding is the latest development in that case is Trump is accusing one of the jurors of some misconduct. Do you have anything to say about that as the Trump team tries to use that to get the conviction overturned?

DA Alvin Bragg: They filed a lot of motions and the judge has denied those. That would set aside the jury verdict. I defer to the jury. The jury rendered a verdict, and that's what we have. Sworn jurors rented a verdict. Our motion's on the judge's desk. The judge will rule. Obviously, we hope that he'll rule in the manner that we suggest keeping the-- not dismissing the case.

Brian Lehrer: The coming Trump mass deportation. Is it on you at all? It's Manhattan DA to decide how much you will cooperate with ICE on people accused of or convicted of crimes in Manhattan under the city sanctuary law?

DA Alvin Bragg: We have we have city law. We're going to follow the law. That's obviously fundamental to what we do here. We're not going to enforce the law and not follow the law. What I will say on that front, and we've seen this in all kinds of cases, whether it's a wage theft case, whether it's a public corruption case, whether it's a homicide, particularly in this city, if you want to solve crime, we need the cooperation of everyone. We are going to talk to witnesses who come forward regardless of their immigration status. The Manhattan DA's office has been doing that for years. I'm loathe to say or hear someone say they're going to turn away evidence based upon someone's status. Our job is public safety, and that has primacy. One way to do that is to talk to anyone who has evidence of wrongdoing. We're going to continue to do that. \

Brian Lehrer: Do you ever downcharge someone who maybe you find sympathetic so that the charge does not cross that line into offenses that aren't covered by the sanctuary city law?

DA Alvin Bragg: We look at the totality of every case on its merits. There can be all kinds of collateral consequences. It's a fact-borne analysis that really looks at a whole bunch of things. Someone's employment, parametal status, health, how long they've been here? What's the nature of the crime is obviously very important. We're doing that across a whole bunch on issues.

Brian Lehrer: That sounds like a yes.

DA Alvin Bragg: But not in isolation. I think that context matters. For example, we're going to look at if there's someone who's-- We've got a case in there, have a child who's in their exclusive care. That's something we're going to think about as well. What weight is put on each one. Someone who has a healthcare issue. I would say we're also looking at all that thing. What we do, and I think maybe people don't appreciate it is really so dependent, obviously, on the individual charges and the law, but each case is really different on its facts. We're taking into account all the considerations and many more that I just noted.

Brian Lehrer: Last thing. I know you got to go. You would be up for reelection next year. Are you running?

DA Alvin Bragg: Yes, in June.

Brian Lehrer: Quick follow up, you were controversial at first for being the progressive prosecutor who had a list of crimes you would not pursue people for in court to fight unnecessary mass incarceration. Do you think that has worked out for the city? I imagine people will be running against you on those grounds.

DA Alvin Bragg: I don't know. I'm sitting in my government office. I'm not going to talk much about a campaign, but I'll talk about our government results, which is that we have a lot more work to do. Crime is down in Manhattan further than it is in the rest of the city. We're driving the citywide decline, and that's at the same time as-- Things I talk about, our problem-solving courts and our navigators. The central aim is public safety. We're getting that through accountability, which comes in many forms. We have a lot more work to do. I'm proud of the work I've done alongside the 1,500 public servants I serve with.

Brian Lehrer: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. We always appreciate when you come on with us, answer my questions, listeners questions. Happy holidays to you and your family. Let's keep talking in the new year.

DA Alvin Bragg: Sounds good. To you and yours. Thanks for having me on.

Copyright © 2024 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.