Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tyen0 t1_iwziwj1 wrote

Reply to comment by poliscijunki in Manhattan D.A. Slams Brakes on Prosecution of Woman in Husband’s Death by poliscijunki

> Mr. Bragg said that he could not allow the case to go forward. He said that he had “reasonable doubt of whether Ms. McCarter stabbed Mr. Murray with the requisite intent to support a conviction of murder in the second degree.” > > He wrote that he could not in good conscience “allow a prosecution to proceed to trial and ask a jury to reach a conclusion that I have not reached myself.”

Am I missing something? He is acting as the jury himself?

> Mr. Bragg does not have the power to dismiss the indictment himself. He recommended that the judge do so

At least he is not pretending to be the judge, also.

4

JonasQuin42 t1_ix06192 wrote

You are missing something. The DA’s job is to argue that the person on trial did a particular crime. Are you seriously suggesting that if that office does not think that crime happened, they should have to try and prove it anyways? One of the core functions of the DA is to look at the evidence collected by police and then make an assessment as to what charges are appropriate.

The DA looking at a situation as more information becomes available and deciding that the charges don’t actually hold up seems like the system working out in the end.

8

tyen0 t1_ix0l6e5 wrote

I guess I was conflating it a bit with defense attorneys that have to defend the client regardless of what they believe the truth is. But I am struggling with your line of reasoning that the prosecutor has to believe they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt to even argue the case. If they are unsure, wouldn't it make sense to have a trial to get to the truth - or as close as possible?

1

JonasQuin42 t1_ix0raf6 wrote

On mobile so please take the suggestion to Google “prosecutorial discretion” as me honestly just trying to give you the info.

The basic concept is that a prosecutor/DA is supposed to be able to look at the full scope of the facts, and adjust the states response to a violation of the law. In this case that means that the DA is looking at the case and does not believe that there is a good case for arguing that the accused committed Murder 2. If that is the case, then is is both a waste of time and effort to bring a trial for that charge, and a an injustice to continue the trial.

To use a more absurd version of this, this is the same feature of the system that would be use if for instance, a cop randomly arrested the first person they found at the scene of a murder and accused them. It is intended as a filter for all sorts of reasons where we don’t want or need the full expense of a trial.

This is also happening on a broad scale all the time. I remember years ago cities started passing laws to deprioritize enforcement and prosecution of personal use quantities of weed.

2

tyen0 t1_ix0ycw2 wrote

Thanks for the explanatory effort. Obviously a part of our world I'm not familiar with aside from tv/movies. I always get kicked out at voir dire.

2