6.11.20 Letter Re Protest Cases

June 11, 2020
VIA EMAIL
The Honorable Jumaane Williams
The Honorable Harvey Epstein
The Honorable Deborah J. Glick
The Honorable Ben Kallos
The Honorable Yuh-Line Niou
The Honorable Keith Powers
The Honorable Dan Quart
The Honorable Carlina Rivera
The Honorable Linda B. Rosenthal
Dear Public Advocate Williams, Assembly Members Epstein, Glick, Niou, Quart &
Rosenthal, and Council Members Kallos, Powers & Rivera:
I am writing in response to your letter sent June 8, received June 9, regarding arrests and
prosecutions stemming from the recent protests in Manhattan.
As elected officials, we have a great responsibility to our community. I am acutely aware of

the power and authority I have through my position as Manhattan District Attorney and of
the privilege I have through both that position and personal circumstance. I also have a duty
as District Attorney to protect the public and serve the People of the State of New York.
That duty always requires me to thoughtfully exercise my discretion.
On Friday, I stated in the clearest terms possible that the prosecution of protestors charged
with low-level offenses undermines critical bonds between law enforcement and the
communities we serve. My Office announced a decline-to-prosecute policy regarding protest
arrests on charges of Unlawful Assembly and Disorderly Conduct during ongoing
demonstrations against the use of excessive force and killing of George Floyd. Previously,
our policy was to offer individuals charged with these low-level offenses an Adjournment in
Contemplation of Dismissal, meaning their cases would be dismissed within six months.
Under the new policy, my Office declines to prosecute these arrests from the outset in the
interest of justice. Our assistants will continue to evaluate and decline to prosecute other
protest-related charges where appropriate.
This policy is designed to minimize unnecessary interactions with the criminal justice system,
reduce racial disparities and collateral consequences in low-level offense prosecutions, and
enable the Office and court system to preserve resources for the prosecution of serious
crimes. If evidence emerges that any individual – civilian or police officer – personally
participated in violence against another person, we will pursue appropriate charges. If
evidence emerges that any individual personally participated in destruction or theft of
property, we will likewise continue to pursue appropriate charges.
My intention was never to “incarcerate more New Yorkers,” as your letter stated, nor is that
the reality of what has occurred. It has been my mission since being elected District Attorney
to reduce the criminal justice footprint of the Manhattan DA’s Office, which is why there
has been a nearly 60 percent decrease in prosecutions in the decade I have been in office,
from 101,285 cases in 2009 to 42,229 cases in 2019. In recent years, my office has ended the
routine prosecution of marijuana smoking and possession, subway fare evasion, unlicensed
vending, nonpayment of fines, loitering for prostitution, and summons cases. As a matter of
policy, our office declined to prosecute arrests for social distancing and other violations of
the recent emergency executive orders. We continue to seek innovative ways to drive that
number lower without compromising public safety and by combining prosecutorial
discretion with the widespread use of diversion programming.
I share your concern that “jails have been a hotspot for COVID-19 transmission.” Between
March 19th and May 12th, there was a nearly 45% reduction in the number of people being
held in jail on a Manhattan case. In testimony before the City Council last month, I stated:
… my Office undertook a comprehensive review of every person being held in DOC

custody on a Manhattan case to assess whether, given the circumstances created by
COVID-19, it was appropriate to proactively exercise our discretion to recommend
release. We recommended release for individuals who presented no clear threat to
public safety, were incarcerated on technical parole violations, were serving short
sentences, or were at particular risk of contracting the virus, as well as for individuals
we believed should be released for other virus-related reasons. This was an
exhaustive undertaking, but one that we embraced as an office, because we felt a
sense of urgency and obligation to safeguard the population in City jails and
correctional staff from this unprecedented health risk. The coronavirus spreads easily
and quickly, especially in densely populated areas where it is difficult to implement
safety measures, like social distancing. We knew that we had an imperative to work
as quickly as possible to reduce the number of people on the inside—sensibly and
with public safety still in mind—so that we could increase each facility’s ability to
implement safety measures to reduce the likelihood of the virus’ spread both inside
and outside the walls of our jails.
Your letter appears to be conflating the very serious Assault and Burglary cases with all of
the arrests that were executed during the course of largely peaceful demonstrations or after
curfew. As I have said, we will not prosecute the latter category of cases. You wrote, “we
have heard reports of peaceful protesters being charged with assault in the second degree.”
We are unaware of such reports and encourage you to share them with us.
In addition to dismissing, across the board, broad categories of charges against peaceful
protesters, we are carefully reviewing the facts of every live arrest brought to us by the
police, especially those involving acts of violence. Between May 28th and June 6th, my Office
charged 20 individuals with Assault in the Second Degree for activity involving the assault of
a police officer or other uniformed member. Again, we are in the process of thoroughly
reviewing those cases, beyond our initial review, but none involved “peaceful protesters,” as
the individuals charged with Assault are accused of personally participating in violent acts. If
there is evidence to the contrary, I want to repeat my call for anyone with documentation,
2
digital evidence, or a narrative of excessive force or unlawful arrest to come forward and
share this evidence with us.
At this moment, our country is being called upon to reckon with centuries of racism, racist
policies, and brutal police tactics in America. Rightly so. There are likely more similarities in
our positions on issues relating to criminal justice reforms than there are differences. George
Floyd was horrifically murdered by the use of a tactic that should be banned in every
jurisdiction. That is why I joined several of my fellow District Attorneys in supporting the
proposed city and state legislation that would criminalize the use of chokeholds and similar
restraints by law enforcement officers while making arrest, as well as S6670B/A6144B,
which will give prosecutors the ability to charge aggravated strangulation when a police
officer commits the crime of criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, or uses a
chokehold or similar restraint, and causes serious physical injury or death.”
I also support the efforts of the Council earlier this week to pass legislation to amend the
administrative code in relation to respecting the right to record police activities, to require
visible shield numbers and rank designations, and to establish procedures for an early
intervention system with record-keeping and reporting requirements that will allow the
police department to identify officers who may be in need of enhanced training or
monitoring. I am looking forward to the governor signing S3253A/A1360A, which will
affirm a citizen’s right to record law enforcement activities. I support the Eric Garner
Excessive Use of Force Prevention Act of 2019 (H.R. 4408), which would prohibit police
chokeholds and other tactics that result in asphyxiation, and the Council’s resolution calling
for the United States Congress to pass, and the President to sign, the Act.
Prior to it passing in the state legislature, I was in favor of repealing Civil Rights Law 50-A,
as well as laws which confer qualified immunity in cases of excessive force. In 2018, my
Office formally requested that the NYPD provide us more direct, expanded, and expedited
access to police disciplinary records, given the challenges of the existing disclosure process,
so that we could make early assessments of witness credibility, explore weaknesses in
potential cases, and exonerate individuals who may have been mistakenly accused.
Two weeks after the killing of George Floyd, our nation and our city are at a crossroads in
our continuing endeavor to confront racism and systemic injustice wherever it exists. We
have a moral imperative to enact public policies which assure all New Yorkers that in our
justice system and our society black lives matter and police violence is a crime. I commend
the thousands of New Yorkers who have peacefully assembled to demand that we meet
these not only achievable but necessary goals, and our door is open to any New Yorker who
wishes to be heard.
Sincerely,
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr.

District Attorney, New York County
3

6.11.20 Letter Re Protest Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6.11.20 Letter Re Protest Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6.11.20 Letter Re Protest Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

June 11, 2020

As elected officials, we have a great responsibility to our community. I am acutely aware of

… my Office undertook a comprehensive review of every person being held in DOC

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr.

You might also like