Manhattan D.A. Said This Woman Acted in Self-Defense. He Prosecuted Her For Almost a Year Anyway.
Alvin Bragg has finally moved to stop prosecuting Tracy McCarter for murder.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has spent the better part of the last year prosecuting a woman for murder. There's a catch: He publicly expressed, multiple times, that he didn't believe it was a murder.
It's an odd scenario for a prosecutor to put himself in. But for Tracy McCarter, the New York woman who in March 2020 killed her abusive, estranged husband, James Murray, it was more than odd. Bragg explicitly campaigned for office on her innocence, calling the killing "self-defense." And though the evidence would appear to corroborate that assertion, he instead continued the prosecution he promised to end, subjecting McCarter to restrictive bail conditions and proceeding toward a trial.
That changed late last week. "After carefully reviewing all the evidence and extensively discussing this matter with members of my office, I have a reasonable doubt of whether Ms. McCarter stabbed Mr. Murray with the requisite intent to support a conviction of murder in the second degree," Bragg wrote in a letter to Justice Diane Kiesel of the New York State Supreme Court. "I cannot in good conscious allow a prosecution to proceed to trial and ask a jury to reach a conclusion that I have not reached myself."
It's the right move. But Bragg's latter admission lays bare just how bizarre it is that it took him so long to formally arrive at a conclusion he very publicly arrived at years ago. "I #StandWithTracy," he tweeted in September 2020, linking to an article about McCarter's six-month pre-trial stint on Rikers Island, arguably the most notoriously violent jail in the United States. "Prosecuting a domestic violence survivor who acted in self-defense is unjust." The evidence, in some sense, is pretty cut and dry; it includes Murray's arrests for domestic violence, a 2018 email where he admitted to assaulting McCarter, and a video from the following year where a naked and drunk Murray is seen attacking her.
So it's difficult to know why Bragg, whose office declined to comment further, gave McCarter the tough-on-crime treatment. But it's a question worth exploring, particularly when considering that this is the same prosecutor who ascended to office promising to put an end to mass incarceration, to reform bail policies, and to not overcharge. "JUSTICE FOR ALL," his homepage reads.
There are obvious similarities between McCarter's experience and that of Jose Alba, the New York bodega worker who drew viral sympathy this summer after Bragg's office charged him with murder, sent him to Rikers, and initially sought half-a-million-dollar bail to keep him there after surveillance video showed Alba stabbing a confrontational customer in self-defense. Those charges were ultimately dropped. One gaping difference between Alba's and McCarter's cases: The former elicited a conservative media backlash that, as I wrote earlier this year, McCarter was not fortunate enough to receive.
Apart from Bragg's potential hostility toward self-defense claims, there's also the fact that Bragg is a politician, prone to playing politics over fulfilling promises. His letter to Justice Kiesel hints at that: "The procedural history of this case since I became the New York County District Attorney reflects my attempt…to find a disposition that would provide a measure of accountability for Ms. McCarter without asking a jury to reach a conclusion that I cannot reach myself," he wrote. "I make this decision with full awareness of the life that was taken in this tragic incident and the many people who are impacted by Ms. McCarter's stabbing of Mr. Murray." But sometimes there is no "accountability" necessary, particularly when an individual exercises a foundational right to protect their life. People do not have the benefit of conducting an on-the-spot cost-benefit analysis when at risk of sudden death. Tragedy happens sometimes, and justice isn't served when we make someone pay only to balance the scales.
Bragg "righted a grievous injustice," said Sean Hecker, McCarter's attorney, in a statement. "Tracy McCarter is an innocent survivor of domestic violence who has suffered mightily from a criminal justice system that demands change."
McCarter's road to prosecution was littered with problems from the beginning. The grand jury that indicted her did so after the prosecution declined to share the evidence of Murray's abuse. In addition to the aforementioned materials, that also included Murray coming to McCarter's apartment that day—where he did not live—intoxicated after he had been on a bender in her building. She was seen administering CPR and screaming for assistance after the stabbing.
That slipshod approach to her prosecution carried over from former District Attorney Cyrus Vance's administration to Bragg's, who at one point attempted to compromise by having the charge downgraded to manslaughter in the first degree (which still carries up to 25 years in prison). The judge who heard that request—Justice Kiesel—rejected it, because Bragg's office neglected to share that same evidence concerning Murray's history. "They affirm, without reference to exhibit or documentation, that she is a survivor of domestic violence," she wrote.
Kiesel does not have to accept Bragg's request to halt McCarter's prosecution. It may turn on the motion he filed, which, true to form, again declines to cite the available evidence (and appears to have been written in about 15 minutes). If Bragg and Kiesel arrive at another impasse, it will be yet another promise broken to a woman who underwent prosecution for a murder that the city's top law enforcement official readily concedes was not one.
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
But sometimes there is no "accountability" necessary, particularly when an individual exercises a foundational right to protect their life.
For decades, Progressives like Bragg have been promoting their sincere belief that the right to protect one's life has been abrogated to civil authorities in this day and age. You would have to be a fool not to take them at their word.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by (ins-02) doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
This is the democrat future Binion and his Reason comrades voted for. I only hope this sort of thing happens to them.
What's up Peanuts?
That fiasco in Afghanistan really cost the Democrats in the midterm election, just like it was built up to.
"Worst foreign policy mistake in US history"? Wingnuts called it.
Turn yourself in for your crimes against children.
What a bizarre #DefendBidenAtAllCosts comment. This one is random even by your standards.
Since you bring it up, though, remember how you spent weeks spamming SLOPPY PULLOUT every time anyone mentioned that botched withdrawal? Because you noticed it coincided with a drop in Biden's approval and were therefore eager to shut down the conversation.
Then one day you abruptly changed your mind. You decided, hey on second thought, we should in fact dwell on how humiliating that catastrophe was. Because you had just read on JuanCole.com that everything bad that happened in Afghanistan under Biden was actually (brace yourself!) Trump's fault.
I regret that I can't find a link to that pathetic display of partisan hackery. If you had any shame you'd be as embarrassed by that post as by a certain May 2021 prediction I won't bother linking here.
Yes, people are easily distracted and have short attention spans.
You’re stoked for a nuclear war, aren’t you Kiddie Raper? The one silver lining is that there we t be much interference to executing pedophiles among the survivors.
Pedos like you.
“The grand jury that indicted her did so after the prosecution declined to share the evidence of Murray’s abuse.”
Here’s an idea: If the grand jury believe it’s been deceived by the D. A. it should have the power to demand the appointment of a special prosecutor, who would prosecute the D. A. if the evidence warrants it.
Likewise if the grand jury concludes a witness lied to it.
Come to think of it, the grand jury should have the power to demand a special prosecutor for any case it thinks the D. A. is ignoring.
Hey, let's go whole hog and let the grand jury demand the replacement of the D. A. by a special prosecutor if it believes the D. A. isn't doing his job properly.
That’s one hell of a ham sandwich.
No ham sandwich left behind!
That’s what they said about the one that choked Mama Cass.
Do the rules on sharing exculpatory evidence (Brady, Jencks, Giglio) apply to informing grand juries?
Unnecessary prosecutions cost the taxpayer.
Unnecessary prosecutions lower public respect for the justice system.
Prosecutors in the United States have incredible powers to determine who to prosecute or not. They are supposed to use criteria like are they likely to get a conviction, what is the law in the situation, and is it a major case with lots of publicity. In reality they are perfectly free to use political considerations as their major determinant. If they are up for reelection, or are looking for a higher office, they can prosecute perfectly valid cases of self-defense and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them.. And if they refuse to prosecute cases, there is very little that can be done. Some states, like Florida, the governor can remove the case from a prosecutor who refuses to prosecute and give it to someone who will prosecute for political reasons has happened to George Zimmerman in Florida. And some states have a recall mechanism where voters can remove prosecutors who refuse to put criminals in jail. This kind of unchecked power is why George Soros is funding these progressive prosecutors. They can implement all kinds of soft on crime, hard on armed self defender policies and no one can stop them
D.A.s are above the law. They can lie, fake evidence, suborn perjury, threaten witnesses and withhold exculpatory evidence with no consequences. Why? Because the brotherhood of D.A.s will never prosecute one of their own. This Wall of Inaction makes the Blue Wall of Silence look tame by comparison.
Mike Nifong, the prosecutor of the Duke Lacrosse team, committed almost every act I named and the only thing that happened to him was he spent one day in jail, not for any crimes he committed, but because he lied to a judge. He was disbarred and in a very unusual ruling, his victims were allowed to sue him in court. Prosecutors have absolute immunity from civil suits (by a judicial ruling in complete disregard of federal law). Nifong is the only prosecutor that I have ever heard of, whose crimes were so severe, that a judge did not apply immunity to his case.
According to the Center for Public Integrity:
Out of 44 attorney disciplinary cases:
In 7, the court dismissed the complaint or did not impose a punishment.
In 20, the court imposed a public or private reprimand or censure.
In 12, the prosecutor’s license to practice law was suspended.
In 2, the prosecutor was disbarred.
In 1, a period of probation was imposed in lieu of a harsher punishment.
In 24, the prosecutor was assessed the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.
In 3, the court remanded the case for further proceedings.
Stay-at-home mom Kelly Richards from New York after quitting her full-time job managed to earn an average of between $6,000 and $8,000 a month freelancing at home...
Here's how she did it..............>>> onlinecareer1
This is another reformer prosecutor that Reason was defending earlier today from evil attacks by Republicans and cops. Reason, take note this is what your sainted reformers do, not actually prosecute criminals but go after people who dare defend themselves against criminals, all in the name of social justice. This is why people are pissed off at them, not because of evil Republicans and cops.
Interesting that the commentariat here instinctively realize that this woman is not being prosecuted despite the fact that she was acting in self-defense but because she was acting in self defense. Alvin Bragg doesn't believe you have the right to defend yourself from criminals because criminals are the heroes of the story. (Witness the bodega worker that stabbed the thug attacking him over his baby momma's welfare card being rejected - Bragg wanted to prosecute him, too.) And yet our writers here don't seem to be cynical enough to believe these people truly are evil and are working to destroy American society despite all the evidence to the contrary.
They're slowly transitioning into being an outright Progressive outlet. They defend Soros and the intentionally horrible outcomes of the DAs he pushed. When they criticize the actions of one they neglect to mention the relation or that it's part of a coordinated effort to reduce freedom and break society.
Years ago Gillespie had an article defending postmodernism and progressivism. His twisted logic tying those ideas to libertarianism was blatantly stupid, but came across to me a point where Reason overtly decided to be partisan leftists who abandoned truth and logic
"They’re slowly transitioning into being an outright Progressive outlet"
If you think a site that verges on the far right in its politics is progressive, you presumably think Adolf himself was weak-sauce.
You think Reason is far right?
What possible justification do you have for that?
There are not even any right-libertarians at Reason. The closest they have to that would be Nick Gillespie, and he is a 70's counterculture leftist libertarian.
The average progressive thinks libertarians and Reason are right-wingers because libertarians think people should be free to keep their own money, own guns, buy what they want, work without asking permission and obeying orders, and so on and so forth.
The average conservative thinks libertarians and Reason are leftists because gays, immigrants, and Trump.
It’s a symptom of the idea that there’s a left-right spectrum, and if someone isn’t on your side then they must be on the other.
And some people are just obsessed with hating Trump, even if it’s against their own interests.
In Dave’s defense, he’s a fucking retard.
Self-defense is a constitutional right. Period.
Once the election was over, he didn’t need to stand with her any more, and there was this bus idling right there, so he did what Democrats do, and threw her under it.
transexuelles reims for your own sexy chat contacts in France
Way to miss the forest for the trees.
"The DA ran for office on..."
Running for office on a promise to not prosecute or to prosecute someone is a pretty bright line ethics violation. It also seems to be par for the course in New York.
At least in this case there was a specific crime and the facts were known. There are other, more significant cases where New York district attorneys have run for office on an explicit promise to prosecute individuals entirely based on political affiliations.... no specific crime even hinted at.
This is as corrupt an act as can possibly exist in our legal system.... yet no action at all has been taken by the New York bar association.
Worse, the nation's leading libertarian publication has no interest in this level of corruption. They join us in outrage over small cases of no wider import, but are absurdly silent on the big cases that undermine the very legitimacy of our system of government.
You’re trying to be like JesseAz?
“So-and-so didn’t say anything about such-and-such! Here’s their thinking and motivation, and the proof is their silence! If you disagree with me then you agree with what they didn’t say!”
Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. Complaining about a DA not dropping a case in a timely manner is great. But if you think that is the headline issue of this story you don't understand the issues well enough to be writing about it at Reason.
"I promise to drop all charges against Rich Philanthropist if elected!"
"I promise to put Koch behind bars and bankrupt Koch Industries if elected!"
See the issue?
"Didn't do it fast enough" hinges on us agreeing with the self defense claim.
Promising to do it in a campaign undermines the entire system of justice and should be a much easier call, of you are a libertarian writing for a libertarian magazine.
Principles over principals.
"Don't prosecute Her" is principals. "Don't make selective prosecution an electoral politics issue" is a principle.
It is the difference between complaining about unbanking of strippers because you are a stripper and you don't want to be unbanked versus complaining about unbanking of strippers because you are opposed to using the banking system as a weapon against disfavored groups.
Reasons matter. The only point of a libertarian magazine is to cover issues because of principle. If it becomes a subjective "depends on who it benefits" exercise you end up like the ACLU... a once vaunted civil rights organization reduced to a partisan lapdog as likely to fight against their core principles as they are to fight for them.
“Didn’t do it fast enough” hinges on us agreeing with the self defense claim.
Um no. Objectively speaking, this woman was confronted with extreme violence, and therefore whether you "agree" or not, she had the right to defend herself. Is there evidence that would disprove self-defense BRD. Nope. Which means this prosecution should result in his disbarment.
You saying Reason should ignore hypocritical politicians?
No, they should call it out. Remember, the magazine is called "Reason" for a minute. It's supposed to be carry on the classical liberal tradition of reason in its argumentation. The publication isn't called "The Libertarian".
Cyto is 100% on point here. We've seen this numerous times where prosecutors have publicly stated they would run on prosecuting or not prosecuting an politically favored/disfavored individual. *cough*Bill Cosby judge*cough*
That's not how the justice system is supposed to work.
My god, this man is an idiot:
"I have a reasonable doubt of whether Ms. McCarter stabbed Mr. Murray with the requisite intent to support a conviction of murder in the second degree . . . "
A person who uses a deadly weapon on another can, of course, be found to have had the intent to kill--the issue is that self-defense is a defense--it does not negate mens rea.
He should be disbarred.
Speaking of him being an idiot, "I cannot in good conscious"
It's probably racist to point out the correct word, so I won't.
I cannot help but wonder what rights people have to use force to defend themselves against this sort of overreach by prosecutors. Does society really have the right to expect someone who defended themselves when confronted extreme violence to quietly allow themselves to be prosecuted. Society may have the power, but it does not have the right. In a just world, this prosecutor would spend the rest of his life in prison.
Competence is right wing.
I have a reasonable doubt of whether Ms. McCarter stabbed Mr. Murray with the requisite intent to support a conviction of murder in the second degree," Bragg wrote in a letter to Justice Diane Kiesel of the New York State Supreme Court. "I cannot in good conscious allow a prosecution to proceed to trial and ask a jury to reach a conclusion that I have not reached myself."
So it's not that he thinks she's innocent, it's that he thinks me might not win a conviction on the evidence.
Alvin Bragg sounds like an asshole. In that photo he looks fat.
Alvin Bragg is a fatass fucking asshole.
No he's evil, and the New York bench tolerates this. The NY Court of Appeals also owns this.
"The former elicited a conservative media backlash that, as I wrote earlier this year, McCarter was not fortunate enough to receive."
Damn the right for pouncing and yet not pouncing on every case.
As it's been said elsewhere: when the GOP screws up, that's the issue. When a Dem screws up, the GOP reaction is the issue.
He can't "in good conscious" (see letter)?
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM