It's Our City is a project that uses TV, Radio and Web
to promote civic engagement in the Philadelphia region.How the Phila D.A.'s Office Might Look Under New Leadership
Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 at 3:19 am - by Matt Campbell. Filed under: Politics.
The race for Philadelphia District Attorney held its most high profile debate last night at the National Constitution Center. Six former Assistant District Attorneys talked about their past achievements and their unique vision for running the D.A.’s office. The moderator of the debate was Philadelphia Daily News Senior Writer Dave Davies did a good job of highlighting the issues that the next D.A. will have to confront. Everything from presiding over a department that just saw its budget cut, to whether political relationships could compromise their integrity, to whether plea bargaining could be better used to reduce the case load in the D.A.’s office.
So how do the candidates differ? Well, surprisingly it was the first question of the night that gave the candidates their best chance to differentiate themselves from one another.
Dan McCaffery answers first followed - in this order- Dan McElhatton, Michael Untermeyer (lone Republican), Michael Turner, Brian Grady, and Seth Williams.
I should mention here that this debate was sponsored by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Alumni Association. So, you had a room of former prosecutors who in all likelihood once worked for D.A. Lynne Abraham. So, as you might expect the candidates didn’t spend too much time trashing Abraham’s record.
Now, for the most unexpected question of the night. It involves the story of one of the candidates who got in fight in the courtroom. Definitely check this one out.
The primary election is May 19 when democrats will nominate only one of the five Democrats to face Republican Michael Untermeyer in the November General Election.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:03 am
With respect to Mr. Grady, while his answer was funny, I would suggest reading the “Findings of Fact” by the Disciplinary board. It directly contradicts much of what he said.
http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/disciplinaryboard/dboardopinions/155DB97.RPT.pdf
April 15th, 2009 at 10:29 am
If the 9 minutes of last night’s debate you featured above was indicative of the entire affair, then Philadelphia could do a lot worse than these 6 candidates. It is not unusual when listening to candidates for D.A. or judge to hear how “tough on crime” they plan to be, with the unspoken (or sometimes screaming) implication that their opponent loves crime and criminals and plans to make crime pay at the first opportunity. I was impressed with how several of them spoke of things like accuracy in charging (not over or under charging), efficiency, and organization. Clearly, many of them understand that there is a lot more to being a D.A. than “tough cookie” false bravado.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
@George. I do think all 6 candidates showed a nuanced understanding of being a prosecutor in the age of prison overcrowding and shrinking budgets.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Maybe Mr. Grady was attempting to take the “Nutter” approach? That is the “keeping it real” and adding humor to it approach.
He also switched up the subject at the end of his comment which is what politicians usually do.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:14 am
I just read the report, thats exactly what Grady said happened. The other guy came at him first and he defended himself. Grady apologized, lets move on, vote for him or not but he owned up to his mistake and otherwise seems to be a good candidate
April 16th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
@Jon.
Come on, this is silly. If Grady wants to get past it, I think that is understandable. That is why it is silly to pretend what is listed as findings of fact dont exist.
He said he never came near the judge, something he has said multiple times. In fact, it says he was screaming at the judge and “inches” from his face. He says he defended himself. The report paints a very, very, very different picture.
Again, he was a young guy, he made a mistake, so should he punished forever? No way. But should he stop saying things about it that are directly contradicted by the findings of the board? Yes.