We were somewhat amused by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s comment after a jury acquitted Daniel Penny in the death of Jordan Neely. It will be recalled that Penny had subdued Neely, who was menacing fellow passengers in a subway car and who died in the process. DA Bragg charged Penny with second degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.
The prosecution was criticized by many who claimed Penny was a hero, citing eyewitness accounts of fellow passengers who told police they felt themselves in mortal danger and that Penny appeared to be trying to hold Neely for police. So reasonable doubt of guilt fairly leapt out. Yet Bragg had insisted, without saying how he could know beyond a reasonable doubt, that Penny had applied more force than what was necessary and that it was that excess that killed Neely.
So, we thought it really rich that when Bragg was asked whether after the acquittal he still thought the case was a good one to have brought he said “As with every case, we followed the facts and the evidence found from the beginning to end.”
Can anyone forget his legal gymnastics to conjure up a case against Donald Trump in the so-called “hush money” case? Was he simply following the evidence when he fashioned a novel connection between federal and state law to enable him to proceed under state law even though the statute of limitations on the state law had already passed?
Was he simply following the evidence when he charged bodega worker Jose Alba with murder? Alba had fatally stabbed Austin Simon who attacked him behind the counter of his store. But no one could interpret the readily available surveillance camera footage as not clearly showing that Alba was acting in self-defense – except perhaps those who had their own reasons for doing so.
In the event, the widespread uproar that followed ultimately resulted in Bragg’s dropping the charges. In fact, Bragg conceded that he couldn’t prove his case against Alba beyond a reasonable doubt.
Paradoxically, Mr. Bragg is the same district attorney who proudly announced on the day he entered office that he would be soft on common criminals: He said he would not even charge many violators for low grade crimes and seek the lowest possible sentences for those convicted of them.
In short, he presented as the paradigmatic “woke” public official committed to promoting leftist ideology and cutting some slack for those felt to have been victimized by the system.
And therein lies the tale.
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg was on a woke frolic of his own. And he exploited the fact that his courtroom venue in Manhattan was largely populated by leftist jurors. So, he seemed to us as having gone after the anti-woke Donald Trump with some inane charges because he knew he could get a conviction against him on virtually any charges he brought against him. Similarly, he seemed to us to have gone after the white former Marine Daniel Penny over the death of the mentally challenged and homeless African-American Jordan Neely. And similarly, he seemed to us to have gone after the Latino Jose Alba in the death of African-American Austin Simon.
In our view, District Attorney Bragg hijacked the criminal justice system in Manhattan and voters should keep that in mind on election day. But we are also mindful that, unfortunately, many Manhattan voters agree with his woke philosophy.
