Manhattan D.A. To Prosecute Domestic Violence Victim for Murder After Saying It Wasn't Murder
Alvin Bragg campaigned on Tracy McCarter’s innocence. Once in office, that was apparently less politically expedient.

When Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was still a candidate for his position, there was a defendant he took a special interest in. "I #StandWithTracy," he tweeted in September 2020. "Prosecuting a domestic violence survivor who acted in self-defense is unjust."
There was a subtext to that message. He was referring to Tracy McCarter, a woman who was charged with murder for killing her estranged—and allegedly highly abusive—husband. It was Cy Vance, who Bragg was seeking to replace in office, who brought that charge against her. The translation: As your district attorney, I won't, and would never, prosecute such a case.
Bragg assumed office in January of this year. As of Tuesday, McCarter is officially headed to trial for murder.
It's not the first time Bragg has failed to apply the principles he won office promising to uphold. There was the case of Jose Alba, 61, a bodega worker who killed an irate customer: In early July, Austin Simon, 35, came behind Alba's workstation, attacked him after his girlfriend's payment was declined, and seemingly attempted to drag Alba out from behind the counter to continue the confrontation. Alba ultimately took a knife and stabbed Simon, who later died from his injuries.
Based on the store's surveillance footage, it appeared to be a fairly classic case of self-defense. Yet Bragg's office charged Alba with second-degree murder, sent him to Rikers Island—one of the most notoriously violent jails in the country—and initially sought a $500,000 bond to ensure he stayed there. This despite running on a platform infused with planks pledging not to overcharge and overincarcerate, and a promise to reform bail policies for pre-trial detention.
After a national outcry, Bragg dropped the charges. But McCarter has not been fortunate enough to attract the same outpouring of attention, notwithstanding the fact that her case also looks like a textbook definition of self-defense, and notwithstanding the fact that Bragg specifically leveraged her misery to distinguish himself from his predecessor.
McCarter was arrested in March 2020 after stabbing her husband, James Murray, who reportedly entered her home, where he did not live, heavily intoxicated, and allegedly threatened her life. She was found trying to administer CPR while screaming for assistance, and her neighbors say Murray had been on a bender in the building. But the grand jury that approved a murder charge against McCarter didn't hear about Murray's drunkenness that day, or his detailed history of violent behavior and abuse, because prosecutors declined to share it.
Bragg, however, could have charted a new course. As the D.A., he has power over which cases he does and does not want to prosecute. As I wrote in July:
Prosecutors enjoy wide discretion on the job—a discretion that Bragg exercises liberally when it suits him. Upon ascending to the top of the D.A.'s office, Bragg announced that he wouldn't prosecute certain crimes, like sex work and marijuana possession. That's not because the New York Legislature had a change of heart on those issues; it's because Bragg has the power not to enforce certain crimes as he sees fit.
Yet not unlike Alba, McCarter encountered a different Bragg from the outset of his time in office. She encountered the tough-on-crime Bragg, who initially fought to make sure she could not leave New York City for psychiatric treatment as a condition of her bail. It was an odd move, particularly when considering this is the same defendant who Bragg insisted should never have been charged with any crime in the first place, much less be subjected to restrictive pre-trial conditions.
"Bragg has demonstrably failed at living up to his campaign promises. He's very much turning out to be the opposite of what he ran on," says Olayemi Olurin, a public defender with the Legal Aid Society of NYC (and a friend of mine). "He drew attention to this case himself…and here he is in office with all the ability to drop the charges."
The latter point bears repeating. Bragg had a very public about-face in the case of Alba, who has since announced he is moving to the Dominican Republic. (Can you blame him?) But Bragg's office has only extended haphazard gestures of mercy toward McCarter. Earlier this week, a judge declined Bragg's request to downgrade the charges from murder to manslaughter—because prosecutors once again did not bother to furnish evidence of her domestic abuse. That evidence includes a 2009 police report detailing Murray's arrests, written correspondence from 2018 in which Murray admits to physical abuse, and a 2019 video of a naked, intoxicated Murray attacking McCarter.
"They affirm, without reference to exhibit or documentation, that she is a survivor of domestic violence," wrote Acting New York State Supreme Court Justice Diane Kiesel. Again, that's not because those exhibits don't exist.
But prosecutors' laziness with that motion just begs the same question once again: Why are they fighting to uphold any charge when they could seek to have it dismissed, as they did in Alba's case? Bragg could, for instance, reconvene a grand jury and actually present the evidence of domestic violence; it is also not unheard of for prosecutors to botch a grand jury hearing if they do not think the case is worth pursuing. So too could Bragg file a request to vacate the charge entirely. Instead, the same prosecutor who publicly called the killing "self-defense" must now ensure it is called murder in court, after admitting again this week—in court—that his office does not think it was a murder.
The ludicrousness of that proposition perhaps makes a bit more sense in the context of political expediency, something that Bragg has navigated clumsily since entering office. "I don't think charges should be brought against Jose Alba, and I think the good thing is for them to be dismissed," says Olurin. Yet Alba's case generated a rare sort of public backlash, particularly in conservative circles, attracting primetime segments on Tucker Carlson's Fox News program. "These progressive prosecutors are very attuned to media attention," she adds.
They are, after all, politicians. But while McCarter may have been useful on the campaign trail, she has proven decidedly less so after the fact.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Alvin Bragg seems to be racist against black and brown bodies. Probably a Trumpian white supremacist.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (dbt-11) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/
it is also not unheard of for prosecutors to botch a grand jury hearing if they do not think the case is worth pursuing.
Or if the case is against a cop. A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich, but not a pig.
Self defense for our left-leaning political leaders is... a complicated topic.
Actually it's not. It's pretty simple. They see government as having not only the monopoly on the initiation of force, but on all uses of force. That turns self defense into vigilante justice, because they see no difference between defending yourself while being attacked and exacting revenge a week later. It's all the same. They see no legal justification for force by someone who is not government. None at all. That's why they want to gather up all the guns, because that's the most effective means of self defense.
See? Simple.
You've got it.
“Thanks for the campaign meme. Now fuck you.”
Democrats.
Is there another side to this at all? Or is it just more of New York making self-defense illegal?
It is part of the left's campaign to make self defense illegal. The left does this everywhere.
Yup, see basically all other Western countries' self-defense laws.
Makes sense though, if your politics rely entirely on committing armed robbery you tend to have a negative view of people defending themselves.
Better we make Marxism illegal. That would end the democrat party.
"But the grand jury that approved a murder charge against McCarter didn't hear about Murray's drunkenness that day, or his detailed history of violent behavior and abuse, because prosecutors declined to share it."
In cases like this (if true), I would suggest grand juries should be able to demand the judge appoint a special prosecutor to prosecute the regular prosecutor.
This is beyond stupid. Let it go to trial. '...I stand with Tracey ...' is the usual BS tossed about by politicians. He had zero knowledge of the specifics of case. When he learned all the facts, including past allegations against HER for domestic violence (that included '...pulling a knife on me...') he moved to have it downgraded to manslaughter. On the date, he didn't live there nor did he have a key; he was visibly intoxicated and showed up at her door that was LOCKED; but instead of calling 911 against this drunk serial domestic abuser, or simply keeping the door locked, the lady he claims once pulled a knife on him, LETS HIM IN and then claims he had the right to do open heart surgery on him. Let the jury decide this one. I'd like to see pictures of the crime scene as I wonder if there was ANY evidence of the vicious fight she claims gave her a right to plunge a knife into him.
But it's still a serious thing if the prosecutor withheld details from the grand jury, even in the case of a guilty person (assuming she was guilty).
While I don't know the details of the case, this does seem to be more likely.
Unfortunately, Reason has lost all goodwill on criminal cases, and I must assume that they omit critical details. That is the very crime that they are accusing the prosecutor of doing.
Get this through your head. Politicians lie. All of them lie. And an elected DA is every bit as much a politician as a member of Congress.
OMG! A politician lied to get elected. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. NOT.
The thug Jose Alba killed while defending himself was black. THAT is why Jose was charged with murder. This was a simple matter of 'Whose side are you on?'
Pshaw, I'll see your whopping whole one person maybe being wrongly persecuted with just one person from the thousands that the Trumpskyites randomly targeted for extermination at the hands of Conservatism/Libertarianism, and raise you just another whole two people from the thousands that the Trumpskyites randomly targeted for extermination at the hands of Conservatism/Libertarianism.
Your pathetic stack of low value chips is not even remotely close to meeting the just the buy in at this table, I recommend that you go play the nickel slots - We play with chips whose values are 10,000, 100,000, and 1,000,000 at this table.
Alvin Bragg is Exhibit A for the case against prosecutors being elected officials. Prosecutors should be appointed, and service as a prosecutor should be a lifetime bar to any elected office. Attaching a profit motive to the incarceration of people is how we get men like Alvin Bragg—men willing to imprison citizens they know to be innocent so they can ride their "tough on crime" record to higher office.
When we have a prosecutor that has a bias involving guilt before trial shows all that he doesn't follow the rule of law. This is what our courts are for. He has no authority to decide guilt or innocence. his authority is to determine that they have the evidence to convict and it is accurate. Determining the level the evidence supports. If he advertises his bias in one case, he will use it in all cases. This should show the voters that he cannot apply the laws equally. The problem starts with the voter's. when told the laws are "unfair" they will vote for people they believe will "level the playing field". An ambiguous statement that most couldn't tell us its correct meaning. Nowhere can one find the word "fair" within any state or federal constitution. What we need is an educated voter. Not school education, but lessons on how to listen to what politicians say. learning all the qualifiers they use. Example. my legislation will do this for the poor. Or my legislation may provide for the poor. the first sentence is an absolute. the latter could mean, may or may not. It becomes not what they say but what you think they say. I as do many others call it double speak. it can be understood two different ways. Politicians, without exception, use this. some are more skillfull than others. Someone that can speak with a flowing manner with the pace of a preacher will be believed despite the message. two that most know is Reagan and obama. Trump was terrible repeating lines as if it would make them true. He was used to short lines that direct action, like a command. Poor Biden suffers from dementias, a condition I know all too well. He is medicated to help with brain function. Like the lamp forced to burn brighter than its design, will have a short life span. We have people that are using him until he burnes out. they care not for his welfare, just their ability to control They want someone that has no input of their own. To qualify, I dont like Biden or what he stood for with his own opinions. Using a man because of what he was is immoral and despicable. It shows us what these people are capable of. If they will put someone into the presidency knowing he can't serve the people , then we must eliminate them all until we have removed the corruption. Now we face the probabilities of corrupt elections the task becomes ever more difficult. We must or watch our Nation turn into a dictatorship with totalitarian powers. Powers that rule by crisis. We are well on our way. only the people unified against a government that trys to devide us with petty differences can succeed. Will we let them? Time to set aside our problems for a later day when we can have a justice system that treats us all as equals leaving the privlaged to answer the same as we.------------ I, Grampa
So this Dem candidate on Tamanny turf acts lenient toward an attacked woman who successfully defied, defeated and deactivated a girl-bullying lout. Once elected he flips to give her the Texas treatment as uppity and violent, and pull in support from the girl-bullying Gee-Oh-Pee. Does this make the prosecutor a DINO?
"When Manhattan District Attorney..."
I swear I have read this same story 13,952 times over the years. Just replace Manhattan with LA, San Fran, or Chicago and run the story again.
"He's very much turning out to be the opposite of what he ran on,..."
Quelle surprise, he's a politician...
He charged Alba because Bragg is a black, and as a black, he sides with other criminal blacks. That's whom he identifies with.