Fact-checking Krasner, Vega in the Philadelphia DA debate

PHILADELPHIA (KYW Newsradio) — Wednesday night’s contentious debate between Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner and challenger Carlos Vega grew more and more heated throughout the hour-long match.

Since then, KYW has been working around the clock to fact-check the Democratic candidates. Here’s what we found based on their statements during the debate.

Related

'I'm your worst nightmare,' Vega tells Krasner after heated Philadelphia DA debate

Vega is suing Krasner campaign, accusing it of 'shameful and maliciously false' statements

Krasner said during the debate:

“The truth is that there was no focused deterrence when I came in. The opposite of what you heard, and the truth is, six months into our administration, we were fully in support of a joint grant with the city to try to do what is now called GVI, which is based on the David Kennedy model, which is something of a focused deterrence model.”

Fact-check determination: False

The city’s focused deterrence program was operating when acting District Attorney Kelley Hodge handed the office over to the newly elected Krasner in 2018, according to current officials and several high-level sources within the office at that time.

The program, which focuses on certain groups that at a high risk of shooting or being shot, offers a carrot-and-stick approach: Authorities reach out to potential shooters and offer social services to get them out of a violent cycle. But if they end up on the other side — accused of shooting someone — they will be arrested and charged to the fullest extent.

Prior to voters electing Krasner, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office was working with the city to expand focused deterrence from South to Northwest Philadelphia, but the office put it on hold until Krasner was sworn in. A few weeks after his inauguration, the prosecutor who ran the focused deterrence program was asked to resign.

The city brought back a modified version of focused deterrence called gun violence intervention, but it had to postpone the start until August 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Part of the debate brought up Vega’s involvement with the Anthony Wright case.

Wright was found wrongly convicted of rape and murder of a 77-year-old woman. Vega was a prosecutor on a re-trial of the case and has said he was brought in at the last minute.

Vega said during the debate:

“When he got a new trial, another DA had it for four years. So, the appellate unit and supervisors made decisions with respect to whether to go to trial or not. The decision was made by the DA to move forward. I was called in at the 11th hour to aid or second-chair that DA, at which point I presented evidence and the jury spoke. What speaks volumes with The Innocence Project is this: The Innocence Project brought disciplinary action against that DA. They did not bring disciplinary action against me because I was not involved in the decision-making of those cases.”

Fact-check determination: Partially false

The Innocence Project, which had a heavy hand in defending Wright, released a statement outlining Vega’s involvement with the trial. Vega was assigned to the case, and it was then-District Attorney Seth Williams who made the decision to retry the case, but the 11th hour is all of what you make of it.

Vega did cross-examine Wright and questioned several other witnesses in the case — something that usually takes prosecutors weeks to prepare for.

And, in a post-trial hearing, Vega said he was brought in about a month to a month-and-a-half prior to the re-trial of Wright. Though it is a complicated case and story, Vega did sit as co-counsel in the re-trial.

Wright was acquitted in the trial involving Vega and sued the city for his wrongful conviction. He was awarded $10 million.

Krasner said during the debate:

“Obviously we have come through a period where the courts were basically closed for almost a year. It’s unprecedented.”

Fact-check determination: Partially false

The courts in Philadelphia were never fully closed. For a few weeks at the start of pandemic shutdowns last year, the court significantly scaled back and paused certain functions, according to a city court spokesperson.

Slowly, some judges began conducting hearings by video conferences, and some defendants were able to enter pleas on certain cases.

Emergency hearings and preliminary arraignments never stopped, but for about six months, there were no criminal jury trials. When the second spike hit in November 2020, there was another lapse in jury trials, but it picked up again last month.

Listen to the full debate below.