As everyone in NYC knows, and many outside it, there is a fierce battle for the Democratic nomination for Manhattan D.A. Robert Morgenthau is stepping down at age 90 after 34 years. The candidates are Richard Aborn, a former Manhattan ADA and active in gun control; Leslie Crocker Snyder, a former state trial judge and Manhattan ADA; and Cy Vance, Jr., a former Manhattan ADA and for the last 20 years or so a lawyer in private practice (17 of them in Seattle).
Each has many supporters. Among them: Vance from the three NYC dailies, Gloria Steinem, David Dinkins, and Morgenthau himself; Aborn from former police commissioner Bill Bratton, 17 of the 21 elected NYC officeholders who made an endorsement, and the legal aid lawyers union; Snyder from many unions, Ed Koch, the Citizens Union, EMILY's list. Etc.
Snyder ran against Morgenthau 4 years ago and got 40 percent of the vote.
There's a lot one can say about the race but I won't because I only want to raise one question.
In a televised debate tonight, in response to a question from a reporter, Aborn and Vance criticized Snyder for
"accepting" the endorsement of the father of a young boy (Etan Patz) who was abducted from a Manhattan street some 20 years ago and never heard from again. No one was ever charged with the crime although there were some suspects. The case attracted worldwide attention and, in fact, someone just wrote a book about it year later.
The criticism was that a candidate for D.A. should not accept an endorsement from a victim (or victim's relative) where the unsolved crime was committed in the county where the candidate is running and, at least in theory, the candidate if elected may have to decide whether to prosecute an alleged perpetrator if evidence emerges. It is unlikely that evidence will emerge that could support a prosecution at this late date, but it is certainly possible that it could.
Snyder's opponents said that if evidence ever did emerge against a suspect, Snyder would have to recuse herself (having accepted the endorsement of the father) and there would have to be a special prosecutor. I think they went further and said that Snyder could not even objectively decide whether to reopen the investigation if there were grounds to consider doing so because she would be seen as rewarding her endorser.
In any event, their position was that a candidate for D.A. should not accept an endorsement from a victim or victim's family when the case is not closed.
I suppose a threshold question is what it means to "accept" an endorsement -- anyone can endorse anyone. Perhaps Snyder did more. Perhaps she attended an event where the endorsement was given or otherwise promoted it (it's not on her website). Put that aside, however. Assume Snyder publicly received the endorsement. Assume that the victim's father did not just call the papers and endorse.
Was she wrong to do that?