. >> rose: welcome to the program, tonight manhattan district attorney cyrus vance junior. >> the job of a prosecutor although it sounds trite is at the end of the day not to fight dirty and win but it's to do was's right. and i will tell you that that is what you're told when you come. it's what i tell the young assistants when they come and start working for me. it's what i belief the bureau chiefs instilled in their lawyers literally every week while they are working there. there aren't too many jobs in america where you go to work and what the boss tells you to do is do what you think is right. and obviously you're guided. but that's a powerful it's a powerful mission. it's very satisfying emotionally. it's also intellectually interesting. >> rose: cy vance for the hour.

funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: cyrus vance junior is here, the district attorney from manhattan. he is only the fourth person to hold the post in the last 75 years. he is now serving his second term in office. in a recent pro fail for "the new york times" magazine chip brown wrote in some ways it may be easier to be the district attorney in manhattan in an era where new yorkers aren't

inclined to do terrible things to one another, and yet manhattan da's office still handles more cases than the entire united states department of justice. he has recently voiced his concerns about cybersecurity and other issues. i'm pleased to have him at this available. welcome. >> thank you so much. >> it's great to you have here. >> it's great to be here. >> as you know and we were talking about, i knew your father well, and what an honor it was to know him. he was just a great publish publish-- public servant. >> a lovely man. >> and they say a very good lawyer. >> and that was one of the secrets of his success as a diplomat. is he, i think people trusted his word. which i think was you have to have that to be a good lawyer. and i think it enabled him to work well with others around the world because they trusted we do what he said he did. >> they didn't doubt he was a man of integrity. it is well-known that he resigned as secretary of state. gave up the power of that office because he disagreed. and he did it after the attack against iran to

release the hostages. >> right. >> can you talk about that at home. >> it was a difficult period at home i don't think charlie that i even know that the raid was going to take place. no surprise. i was in law school and certainly was around the house, not living there. but it was a very tense time i think i remember my father feeling just awful physically. maybe had a case of gout but just felt like hell. and then the raid happened. it failed. he then disclosed that brought us in the family and said i told the president i don't agree with this. but if you do it you are clearly not listening to me and so i'm going to resign irrespective of the outcome. he was probably relieved in one sense, but hurt. hurt that his word or his council as secretary of state was not capturing the

president's ear to the point that he was following his advicement but it was a tough period. but he moved on. >> see, but you know it's an interesting case study isn't it, as to whether i mean the president wanted his best advice. he wanted the best advice of others. sometimes he would listen to the secretary of state. sometimes he would listen to the cia director, sometimes to the secretary of defense sometimes to the white house council and to resign because he didn't listen to you. >> i think that was a factor. but on an issue that was very important to my father. but you are absolutely right. in my office, i listened to a lot of people. >> and you hope they don't go away if you don't make a decision in which they recommend. >> yeah but you were resistant to becoming a lawyer. >> i had a well-known lawyer father. and i think there was a certain rebelt onin every child whose father is well-known in a profession, god dammit will i do something else. >> what did you think that

would be. >> i wasn't sure. what i did was i went and worked in west africa after college working for an oil shipping and transportation company. as i said i wasn't the best of businessman but i had a hell of a time i traveled all over, learned a lot and decide to come back. >> why did you ultimately decide to do that? >> i think there was just a title pull or a lunar pull. i respected my father it had clearly been a very satisfying emotionally and intellectually life for him. and i think in many respects, i shared some characteristics of his. so i did it. and i was glad i did it. and then i was fortunate enough when i got out to go talk to more again thal and he gave me a job. >> rose: you went to seattle too. >> yes. i worked for bob morgen thal

for six years. >> who had the job you have now. >> he had the job i had now. the third district attorney in 40 years the. then my wife and i, my wife peggy and i particularly felt it was time to go to be on our own. she was one of nain kids. her father was one of 15. i had a lawyer family that was ever present. and i think we both had an instinct that we should go somewhere, raise our family. and have an adventure. and seattle was for us at the time that adventure. we moved out before microsoft hit. so it was a beautiful city but it wasn't the dynamic city that it later became. in the 16 years i lived out there, seattle changed, i think as much as any american city in that same time period. when microsoft and-- . >> rose: amazon. >> am zohn and costco. incredibly dynamic. >> what is interesting to me is you went from being a prosecutor to being a defense attorney. you became a very very highly regarded criminal

defense attorney. lots of prosecutors do that. do you become a prosecutor because you know it will equip you well to become a defense attorney. because most people don't remain prosecutors all their life. >> some do. i didn't. i didn't have a desire going to law school that i was going to be a defense attorney. it really was i finished my stint with the da's office. i moved out west. i loved the criminal law. it took some adjustment to go on the defense side. and that took some time. but being a defense lawyer is also one of the most satisfying and most important roles i think lawyers can play. >> rose: because? >> because you have in your hands the future of a man or woman or a company. and it may mean the company's survival, it may mean the liberty of the man or woman. typically the resources you can bring to bear to defend your case are not as great as the resources the government brings to bear to prosecute its. and i think there's-- it is also-- it's intimate.

you know, when you are sitting with someone trying to get ready for something you've got to do in court or to understand a witness and what they're saying and how they feel it's very personal. it's like you and me. >> right. >> and you don't have the lux reeve four or five detectives going out and doing things. it's very hands on. very satisfying. but i would say between the two i think being the manhattan d.a. or defense lawyer, the manhattan d.a. is an extraordinary job. >> rose: so you come back to new york. you decided it has been got i want to company back to new york. the family is here. perhaps other personal considerations i don't know. and you who had zero political experience zero. >> well, not quite true. >> rose: okay, you had been -- >> when i was six years old i handed out flyers for lbj. >> rose: okay, when you were six. all right. practically no political experience.

decide that you are going to run for a very important political office in new york city. does that take-- what? >> i always felt when i was a young assistant da as i bet everyone in my office does today and everyone who has graduated from the office. if i could be the manhattan district attorney, that would be the best legal job in the world. >> why is that? >> it is an office unlike any other prosecutor's office in the country. we are in manhattan first of all. it means that we are dealing with some of the most complicated financial international cases as well as-- . >> rose: jurisdiction of wall street. >> as well as serious violent crime and cybercrime. there are more areas of prosecution in my office than i think there are anywhere else. >> so it's more powerful than the attorney general of new york? >> no.

it's not a question of powerful. it is a question of do you like the substance of the work. >> right. >> and i loved the pros kuchlingts the job of the prosecutor although it sounds trite is at the eferpd end of the day not to fight dirty and win but it's to do what's right. and i will tell you that that is what you're told when you come. it's what i tell the young assistants when they come and start working for me. it's what i believe the bureau chiefs instilled in their lawyers literally every week whale they are working there. there aren't too many jobs in america where you go to work and what the boss tells you to do is just do what you think is right. and obviously you are guided. but that's a powerful-- it's a powerful mission. it's very satisfying emotionally. it's also actually interesting. and you have the people that have been to law school know something called prosecutorial discretion. >> prosecutorial discretion our ability to decide what to charge, if charged how to

plea bargain. >> perhaps this person did it. we don't have the evidence to go forward with the prosecution. >> or you feel even though this person did it, there are mitigating factors that cause you to rethink either the severity of the charge or whether you should charge at all. that's a lot of power that's given typically to young lawyers at out of law school an that's why i think working in a prosecutor's office is so special and maturing. because these lawyers aren't doing what the lawyers in the big firms are doing. they are not turning out to be the big writers or best document reviewers. these are specialists and people. they are specialists in getting witnesses to talk to you. witnesses don't come to court because they get a subpoena. in my experience my witnesses came to court because i was calling them up and trying to make sure that they knew i cared. and it is very much a people business jury selection argument. all in all that is a very satisfying way to spend your

time as a lawyer. not very remune atif but very satisfying. >> rose: you were re-elected. >> there was a time during the midst of your first term people said there is no way in hell he is going to be re-elected. fair enough. >> there were a few. >> you never doubted? >> you never doubted you could explain the actions and decisions that i have taken? >> i never to run for the da's office i obviously didn't know if i could win being da. i felt i was the best person to do it. >> and bob in the end did also. and i think i ran a good campaign with ideas an substance. i think that's why i won. >> there are always going to be very difficult cases in one's tenure attorney general how older has had his fair share. i'm not comparing myself to attorney general holder. but in manhattan we have the intensity of media review

scrutiny in our case is probably as great as any other office, if the country federal or state. and there were a series of cases, some of them actually cases that bob invited that were tried in my term that resulted in acquittals. and then strauss-kahn was arrested, indicted. >> rose: when did you first know he had been arrested? >> i knew probably within an hour or so. >> rose: that he was arrested. >> i didn't-- to be honest with you, it wasn't-- . >> rose: we have taken him off district attorney we have taken him off a plane and we have taken him. and we have -- >> yeah he is in prison. >> are he is in custody. >> but there were folks who were very critical and i come to understand that that is their job. that's okay. and what i-- i really felt though very comfortable in my first term. win or lose for running

again. i felt that what the office was doing in terms of modernizing the office, doing powerful prosecutions, including sex crimes is very cutting edge meth of going after gangs and drugs we're doing well but there are those cases that simply captivate and run off. and this was one of them. >> for a moment it did captivate. i think it was tabloid heaven. the so-called you know the french got very up set about this. because they thought that you know, the press was convicting him beforehand. and the walk he had. and all in front of cameras and all of that. are they right? >> the da's association of which i was president right in the middle of that we issued a motion that we did not believe that what we

called per walks were appropriate. and i think they aren't. now there are others who strongly disagree. but i do think they-- . >> rose: rudy giuliani probably among them. >> probably among them. but i don't think they're necessary. and i think they can be demeaning. and ultimately what i think you want in the courts is to have everybody who touches the system erck feel that it is respectful, even if it is tough. and if you have essentially sort of tawdry, tawdry photographs or cheap shots that i think can erode the public's perception of the-- whatever the word is charlie. the importance and the solemnity of the institution. >> if you had to do it over what would you do differently if anything? >> i might have conducted a preliminary hearing. which is -- >> well, in new york state

and there are reasons why i didn't. new york state has a very unique set of laws that relate to what happens once you are arrested and are in jail. in a nutshell you-- if it's a felony, you either have that case indicted grand jury hears the evidence files an indictment, within five or six days depending on whether a weekend is included or not. and if you haven't gotten the indictment before that time, then the department is free. he is still charged but free on bail. unless the defendant agrees to extend that date, there is a pretty diet time-- tight timetable in which to make judgements. and there was certainly just a whole host of flurry of questions and issues about his you know, the extent of his wealth. whether or not the complaining witness was being reached out to, in an effort to try to-- and i'm not saying strauss-kahn did this but the rumor mill was

was-- filled with it. so a preliminary hearing if you hold a preliminary hearing in that same time period and the judge determines there is probable cause, then the defendant can still stays in jail. and the next court date essentially is kicked over 30 or 45 days for indictment. the reason we didn't and i didn't, is because number one, we just really didn't know that much about strauss-kahn's actual individual wealth and reach. and because there was real concern about putting the complainant on the witness stand in a circus. and grand-jury testimony is not like a public hearing. it is-- to a grand jury and it's in secret. so i think that we-- i really think we handled this case as controversial as it was as prosecutors, the right way making the right judgements, when we found information that could only have come to light through the passage of time and the

return on subpoenas. we had-- we didn't stop investigating. we kept on working. and we found that there was evidence which we immediately turned over to the judge. which caused a sensation. and then ultimately -- >> that's an important decision, whether they immediately turn it over to the judge. >> it is what i think you should do with the prosecutor. but did i like having to get whomped for doing that? no i didn't. and then ultimately in early august or middle august it was very important to me that we had done a very thorough investigation before we issued any kind of decision on what we were going to do. we had to follow a process and make sure we had investigated everything we needed to understand what was going on and what had happened. and i think the case sort of a teaching home for me and for our assistants, and perhaps for others is you arrest people on probable cause. more probably than not. and that makes sense because you can't typically have a

trial before you arrest somebody if someone says that man just took my wallet. >> rose: right. >> but before you take a case to trial, in my opinion you have a burden at trial 12 jurors you have to convince them all beyond a reasonable doubt that this individual is guilty. and if during the course of the investigation we as prosecutors or you as the individual prosecutor don't have an abiding faith beyond a reasonable doubt in knowing what happened then i think it's our obligation to not go forward with the case. notwithstanding the anger and up set that that can cause. >> rose: and is that what happened here? >> yeah. and we moves to the court-- we issued a lengthy memorandum stating why. >> rose: are you saying you don't know what happened in that room? >> no, we don't. not beyond a reasonable doubt. there clearly was sexual contact. the dna proved it. that wasn't really a dispute. but whether it was forcible forcibly compelled sexual

contact or not was not something, when we looked at all of the evidence and we looked at a lot of evidence we were able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that we believed it had happened. >> rose: so here is an interesting story. during the time he had resigned as director of the imf. suppose it was as he said. was this a terrible injustice to him? >> i think the way-- it is-- i don't believe it was a terrible injustice to him. i believe with all respect to him and his ex-wife the reason we were dealing with this was because of things that he put into play. >> rose: right. >> we wouldn't have had to deal with any of it if there had not been some sexual-- . >> rose: she was in the room. >> so no.

and then frankly as other information came spilling out over the course of the next six, seven eight months about matters outside this investigation relating to him i felt even less that we had treated him poorly. >> rose: people discovered a lot after that. when he went back to france. well were you worried that he might plea? >> at the seem that he was arrested on the plane, there was no treaty. >> rose: extradition. >> extradition between ourselve and france. >> rose: no treaty of extradition with france to this day? >> i don't think we do to this day. or certainly at least for the charge that-- . >> rose: if you had pulled him off the plane. >> he could have gone and never come back. but at the end of the day this is a case that took time to sort through. and i think we got it right when we stored through. >> rose: my last question about that. turn it around was it a grave injustice to her if, in fact things happened as she said them, but they didn't go forward because

other aspects of her own life experience. >> it is-- i think certainly we did not intend any disservice to her. i think it's fair to say that the attorneys in our office, when they first met her were absolutely convinced in her truthfulness. >> rose: these are smart people who know what witnesses are like. and they believed her at the beginning. >> a number of other facts came out, and i won't bore you with them or criticize her for them. but they were substantial and substantial enough for us to believe that her credibility in testifying as the complainant in this case was so compromised that we ourselves, didn't know exactly what had happened rses let me make this larger. because of your experience and because you make decisions that caused this question to be raised, we now have dna evidence and a lot more.

and it's released a lot of people from prison, right. i think you are very much in favor of that, where you are. >> i am. >> rose: what percentage of the people you think that are convicted is it five percent? >> i wouldn't venture a guess. i would say-- i would say less than that certainly. >> rose: less than five percent. juries and judges get it right at least 95% of the time. >> there is no-- there ask no study that can scientifically answer that question. if you ask a lawyer who is critical of the criminal justice system prosecutors, that lawyer will say 50% of the cases that are tried are unjust my own experience as a prosecutor defense lawyer prosecutor again and civil litigant is i do think the prosecutors try to, and get it right the overwhelming majority of times. but when i ran for office

and was informed by having been a defense lawyer, i felt it was very important that the manhattan da's office be a national leader on this issue of conviction integrity. there's nothing more upsetting to a lawyer, let alone a criminal lawyer than understanding that decisions that have been made by you or others in your field were wrong and resulted in the conviction of innocent people, imprisonment of innocent people. so we all-- that was-- the innocence movement appropriately sort of shocked the legal system as -- . >> yes started with dna. and an office as large as ours and being really one of the major prosecutions offices in the world, i felt that we needed to be transparent about how we were going to not just review cases which is sort of half the occasion reviewing cases that had been, where there had been convictions, and allocations of innocence but teaching. more importantly to me is

identifying best practices and teaching the young lawyers on the front end what to watch out for in those kinds of cases where statistics have shown errors of judgement were most likely made. one witness i.d. cases. cases involving confidential informants. issueless relating to identification procedure and certain kinds of maintenance and evidence. we have spent a lot of time in our conviction integrity unit working on the front end. and i believe there was some resistance and skepticism and up set when i started this unit in our office. and i think they've probably said-- . >> rose: for those of us i'm a lawyer but thank god for the legal profession, i don't practice. the things that seem to me most flagrant are when people have evidence that they know may contribute to innocence. >> yeah. >> rose: and just simply to win for careerism withhold it.

>> yes, there is very little that is worse than that in our business. >> rose: let me move to the impact of technology. >> yeah. >> rose: as you might imagine on the positive side you have now access to data and police-- bill braaten was here last night, taped a show with me have access to data on-- positive side is you might be able to make more informed decisions and help police work and prosecutor work in terms of reaching the right decision. explain to me more how it makes your life easier today and when we look at the phenomenon of how the computer has given us, and the internet has given us so much more than we imagined. >> it's a two-edged sword. >> rose: right. >> i will just start by

saying the biggest change between practicing criminal law in decades past when i did and today is the impact of the internet because every case charlie that we have, whether it's a homicide, whether it's a domestic violence case, rape or a case of economic fraud much of the evidence is going to come from handheld mobile devices e-mails, facebook postings photographs. so every case is now infused with this kind of evidence. that is, i would say a blessing. our challenge is to be able to have assistants who are competent, who know how to find it and use it an office that is competent to review these items and make sure that we are getting the right evidence off them, and to not only convict the guilty but exonerate the innocent. on the flip side the internet is obviously very dark and the-- a third of

our felony cases are now cybercrime cases. it is a tsunami-- . >> rose: a third of your felony cases -- >> are cybercrime cases. >> rose: explain more. >> cases that refer to identity theft or straightout scribe crime. >> rose: a third of them? >> yeah, so it has changed our practice significantly. and the unfortunate reality is that people not just here but abroad have morphed from being criminals in one endeavor, whether it's selling drugs or snatching chains on 42nd street. they have gone off the street and into identity theft because it's safer cheaper and more remune difficult. and you have a very intelligent group of criminal players who are in eastern europe russian-speaking, who have been instrumental in buying and spying and selling the

identities that are stolen from major stores and banks. and it is an international problem. >> rose: but why russian? >> i think it's just that the schooling. it is an international business. it's not only borderless in the way that i just described it but it's international. and one of the things that i have come to appreciate is because it is international our office needs to deal with it. and that means who, what other major cities should we be in partnership with trying to identify what attacks cyberattacks are occurring on our residents that are similar to the ones that are occurring on theirs. is this person in yearn union hitting both of us. we opened a close relationship with the city of london police. we share investigative information personnel between offices. and we have actually brought down one case in the last several months which involved new york ackers and english actors.

this is the wave of the future. it's international, it's everywhere. and i'm not trying to be dramatic. it's just a lot. we're not-- we've not won the war on cybercrime. >> rose: and growing. >> and growing. >> rose: and then there is this. google and apple. >> yeah. they can now encrypt. >> yes. >> rose: and they don't even know how to access the information. >> what apple and google said in their most recent upgrades to their operating system is that they no longer have a key. we used to send them the phones, and they would take their key unencrypt, send it back to us. so we would get the data and we could deal with it. they no longer have that key and market their phones if you remember several months ago, saying we can't be-- we can't assist law enforcement. that-- . >> rose: did this all come out of the snowden business? >> i'm sure it came out of

the snowden business an concern over the nsa. and i don't-- for a minute diminish the importance of right to privacy and-- i don't want the nsa looking at my e-mails. but where i strongly disagree with apple and google is that is not what we're talking about here. it's not the da's office willey thrilly trying to go into your e-mails. we have to get a warrant from a judge. we have to present probable cause that on this cell phone or device there is likely to be information relating to them crime or that crime and a judge has to review it and sign it. >> rose: so a judge has to-- before you can request this information from google or from facebook. >> there has to be -- >> there has to be-- . >> rose: you have to have a judge say that it's appropriate that they ask for this information. >> and get it. >> rose: because it's relevant to a criminal investigation. >> might be relevant. >> rose: might be. now this is potentially of huge import to the hundreds and thousands or millions of cases particularly to state courts around the country. we just had a case that i

heard of where there was a series of drug dealers in what looked like a drug deal. and one guy was videotaping it with his iphone. and then someone makes a noise to the left. he moves the phone to the doorway. and in the doorway is a guy with a gun who shoots the iphone holder dead. you see the iphone drop to the ground. and that homicide would not have been capable of being made if we were unable to get to the movie on the iphone. today under the new operating system we would not be able to get that individual jo. >> rose: because the only person who has the key now is the holder of the smart phone. >> is the deadman. >> rose: and does apple or google or whoever else it is show any receptivity to the argument you are making or do they simply say it's privacy? >> i think they are-- they are-- i acknowledge that they are facing an international marketplace. >> rose: right. >> and they are successfully marketing and selling all over the world. so i look at this through the lens of a new york city

prosecutor. they are looking at it through the business lens and through the political lens, i believe, of snowden and the aftermath. >> rose: right. >> but as i have said, to not be able to get into these phones, i think is swinging the pendulum too far because the victims are actually going to be apple and google's own customers who are going to be victims of crime. and they're not going to be able to, through the lawyers or das get access to information on these phones that may relate to how they got ripped off. >> rose: let me transfer this not to apple and google but to facebook. and wanting access to somebody's facebook which i assume you can get unless they take it down and all that kind of stuff. are there issues here? >> well, there are issues. we again use a search warrant. there is one case that is now in litigation. i won't comment on the

pluses or minuses because it's in litigation. but there was a 99 page affidavit that was submitted by our office seeking authorization from the court to subpoena and search the facebook files for several hundred people's facebook. we litigation -- litigate against twitter separately in connection with the occupy wall street cases. but i guess this whole conversation speaks to the fact that technology is changing. how we gather evidence. >> rose: and you need new rules? >> you may need new rules. they may need to be updated. the evidence is not going to be on notepads any more. the evidence is going to be on twitter account facebook,ix phones, ipads. it's a new world and my commitment is that our office is going to be capable of and up to the challenge. and i think we are. >> rose: marijuana and how much marijuana you might have had, and when it should

be prosecuted? the brooklyn da, who you met during-- the strauss-kahn case. >> yeah. >> rose: does he have the same position you do? >> he does yeah in brooklyn. >> rose: and what is that position. >> the district attorney. >> rose: no i know that the position on marijuana. >> oh, right. >> rose: he is saying we're to the going to prosecute these. whatever happens in brooklyn -- >> i didn't want-- the reason why i didn't adopt the brooklyn district attorney's position. he was first to say i'm not going to prosecute these cases. >> rose: for the possession of so much marijuana. >> for the possession. by the way, i had for years taken the position we ought to decriminalize this. >> rose: right. >> but the state hadn't done it. and i felt that my job was really to get the police department to come on board with this or hope i could. so that there would be a five county solution to the problem.

ultimately those five counties came together. and we are no longer prosecuting these low level possession cases. and that's because commissioner bratton met with us and talked with us. and we finally figured that out. and now that's not a problem. but i don't think we need-- i don't think we need to have small amounts of marijuana as a crime. i think that ultimately the legislature-- . >> rose: -- >> are gangs a big deal in new york. and i mean by this organized crime. >> not youth gangs. >> rose: i will come back to youth gangs. >> organized crime-- . >> rose: start with younk gangs for a second. as we have in l.a., for example do you have that kind of issue. >> yes we do. one of the first things i did when i was da is i started two things. one was a violent criminal enterprises team who were going to focus on gangs and guns and violence. and we developed what is called a crime strategies

unit. and that article chip brown wrote talks a lot about that unit which essentially the idea is to have our investigations informed by intelligence in our office and to have that intelligence shared with the assistants who are building these cases. but we have to get that intelligence. we have to make sure it is readable and pushed out to the right folks. we've taken 17 gangs down in manhattan over the last four years. >> rose: what do you mean taken down. >> that means indict and arrest. and the result has been i believe positive. which is to say the homicide rate the shooting incident rate, the shooting victim rate in manhattan has decreased more than the other counties. i think it's because personally we are doing-- we have been doing this proactive work. that kind of gang typically is somewhere between 14 and 19 years old. >> does the level of crime in a community have anything

to do with the da's office? >> i think it can. i think you've got to be careful if you are claiming that you eliminated crime because when this comes back you own that too. but i do believe for example that-- . >> rose: i mean is it really all the police or is it the police and the prosecutorial. >> it is actually free. it's the police it's the prosecutors and the community. >> rose: oh. >> when all three are working together that is when you are going to see the greatest reduction in crime and greatest enhancement of security. da our office is no longer a defensive office. that is we don't-- we now are just as-- we are investigating affirmatively. we are leaning forward. we are gathering intelligence sharing intelligence. we're not waiting for police officers to bring them cases. >> rose: now organized crime is it -- >> it is not what it was.

and there is organized crime. but it is as we see it relegated right now to drugs illegal sale of prescription drugs. numbers, off track-- and betting. it's kind of nickel and dime stuff compared to the era of homicides and serious violent crime. >> rose: the whole thing in terms of crime lords. >> i'm not sure-- i'm sure there are organized criminals out there that are doing more damaging stuff that i described. but we don't see organized crime in the way we saw it in the 1980s. >> rose: how has the drug world changed since-- in the last ten to 15 years in terms of the nature of the drug trafficking in terms of who is involved in terms of what products are most popular. >> well, i think two trends in the last several years are ones that i would focus

on. >> one is prescription drugs is its sale of prescription drugs codeine that has become a huge market. and that is of real concern to communities all over the country and certainly in new york. so that spiked and has continued to be high. heroin has made a comeback in new york city. probably because it is cheap. and i think got cheap because people were buying prescription drugs and heroin was available in quantities that didn't cut market. >> how about crack cocaine. >> crack cocaine as an ongoing drug problem is no longer there why is that? >> hopefully because people understand that it is a killer. >> right. >> it's a killer. and that era in the '80s when crack hit when i was in the office it really was

amazing. it is almost as if a virus hit new york and people were getting infected with this virus which is addicted to crack cocaine and incedely violent behavior was popping you all over the city it was pretty scary. >> do you have the tools. >> the kinds of things that you think you, give you the tools to do what the people elect you expect of you? >> i do during the bloomberg years mike was a great mayor and partner with us and to me. but we our tax dollars were cut, our budget was cut each year for several years when i did my first term. ultimately we have been able to restore that budget line to where we think it should be. the right base. that in combination with

fines and other forfeitures that we obtained through cases, i feel we are -- >> that's interesting. i think if i hadn't read about you it might have slipped by me too. including the fines that you collect. so if you sue a financial institution for something and they pay a fine, you have discretion as to how that shall did --. >> it depends. it's more complicated than that. depending upon the nature of the partners, federal or state, and the nature of forfeiture, federal or state, a certain percentage of the dollars do come to our office. and we can spend those dollars under-- on the federal side under strict guidelines which we have to submit a spending plan to the federal government and they approve it or they don't. and if they do, we can spend the money on things. many things except da salaries and on the state forfeiture cases it's a

statute that is not as defined. but we need to invest all those dollars in law enforcement issues as well. i think frankly we are doing some great stuff with it we have committed to give 35 million dollars to help end the backlog of untested rape kids around the country. that was a tragedy and the testing of those rape kits in places as far-flung as oklahoma california, they will reveal new york defendants. >> rose: the level of domestic violence, is that up or down? >> it's up slightly. if you were to ask me what is your focus and where do you have to focus the next couple of years, i would same home group violent extremists, cybercrime-- . >> rose: terrorism home group terrorism. >> and terrorism finance. >> rose: what does that mean? >> that means money that is moved to fund terrorism activities here or there. >> some foundation somebody whatever. >> yeah. and third domestic violence.

domestic violence is a very significant problem. and it is one of the areas where i feel we have the most work to do. we open a family justice center last year in manhattan. the family justice center is a place where a victim of domestic violence can in 1 place get both criminal talk with the prosecutor and a cop about what has happened. at the same time get essential services like child care for kids, a place to stay and emergency funding it merges those two parts of that person's life at that point in time when they are leaving the home time of great danger for the women typically who has two or three kids in toe. and literally she does not know where she is going to sleep that night. that was a big help we believe to service victims of domestic have a lens. but we still have a long way to go. >> you realize it's more prevalent than we know.

>> it is prevalent in every income group every community. it is shockingly pervasive. >> the most satisfying aspect of your job is the belief that you are representing the community in putting n due process and justice. >> and preventing crimes. >> preventing crimes. >> we spent a lot of time and money on crime prevention strategies. we now have ten centers in manhattan we have started for boys an girls 12 to 18 years old, fray an saturday night. we call it fray night lights. we have-- it is one of those. we hired -- >> we hired professional trainers but we also have basketball-- we also have volleyball and soccer and lacrosse. >> the idea is to provide a

place for the community to be. >> an to have educational counselling for those kids and family was want it. >> that is crime fighting to me. today i think the d arsa-- da's job fighting crime is not just what you do in a courtroom. to me every strategy, it is my job to encourage my team to develop every strategy that is going to drive crime down long term. some of that may be hard-charging gang case. some of that may be reaching out to the immigrant community to tell them what to watch out for so they don't get ripped off by someone who tries to prey on them. some of that may be working on kids in the community. >> what's the fasting-- it's a third of crime cyberrelated. what is the next largest category. is it-- i'm not sure i can say what is the next largest it is certainly going to be some kind of larceny. there's been an explosion of thefts of ipads iphones that is a-- manhattan has a

huge percentage of those citiwide cases because people come to manhattan. there is a lot of money and a lot of people with devices here. >> this is my information a graduate of the law school. i would know this but i don't. so a crime is committed a decision is made there is probable cause to arrest. >> indict. >> rose: arrest first and and then under what -- >> cop comes down. >> rose: come comes down. >> interviewed by the assistant. >> rose: right. >> determines what we have and what we don't have. >> right. >> rose: we make an application to determine the defendant should have bail or not. if we ask for bail then the assistant either goes to the court when the guy is arraigned and asks for bail or sends a note. if that person is held in then within x number of day wes either have to indict him or her. and if we don't inindict then they are out of jail.

we have six months to try most felony cases. there are extensions-- to start the trial. >> to start the trial. very roughly speaking because there are exclusions for motions practices and this and that. but it's a fairly fast moving practice. and i think what people-- what i love when i was a young assistant when i got used to it, is to city in the arraignment park where there is 150 cases in the calendar. it's a little bit like you are juggling, you are juggling and spinning plates and you are doing all those things at once and trying to keep your head about you. and to be careful and thoughtful and fair. it's a-- people who do that and get adjusted to t i think they find that fascinating. >> this is like a teaching moment for me but also for the audience because it's come up. so when does a grand jury come and play? >> in order to charge someone and prosecute them prosecute the trial for a

felony in new york you have to present the case to a grand jury. and the grand jury-- essentially vote to indict you for robbery whatever it is. the grand jury may decide not to indict you. and the case ends. >> but that is when you need to go to a grand jury and present evidence 23 jurors. and the only evidence is presented by the prosecution. >> grand juries can ask for witnesses to be called. and sometimes do. the defendant may testified with his lawyer or her lawyer. >> at his own choice. >> at their own choice. they have to waive the fifth amendment privilege in order to do that. but the grand jury process in new york is really much more robust than in the federal system. so if there si is a robbery

or sex crime or complicatesed fraud we actually have to find the people to put them in the grand jury, get the evidence in. the grand juries eyeball the witnesses. they ask questions of the witnesses and ultimately the grand jury the grand jury either indicts or doesn't indict. >> this is a unanimous vote. >> no 12 out of 23. >> 12 out of 23. probable cause is the standard 12 out of 23. >> but it's only for felonies. >> and you can wave. >> you can't invite without -- >> you can also indict misdemeanors which we do from time to time. and we do that rarely because we think the case is sufficiently complex that we want to take it up to supreme court where we believe the resources may be clear. >> you believe this process works well. >> its grand jury prowessness i believe the process works well. i am aware as we all are of the events of the last several months. >> in nerg son and here. >> and i am open to standing

with the governor and others and talking about are there ways that we can make more transparent the decisions of the grand juries and police involved fatallities. >> so you ask can we make it more transparent. i'm not asking these questions because it seems to me the public is -- -- franking had an had this job for how long? >> 32. bob had it for 34. >> and so you were elected when? >> in 2010. >> i started 2010. >> 2010. so 32 years that would be 2040. >> yeah. >> 2014. >> you had 30 years how will you be in 2040. >> i will be old. >> bob morgenthal was one of a kind. a mentor to so many of us. and i think, the wonderful thing about our office is when i came in and took it over i inherited a phenomenal office.

i have to do things to change it as anybody does when they come in. but my job is really very simple. i inherited a phenomenal office an my job is before i leave that i lift the bar a little higher before i pass it to the next person. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you, charlie. >> pres lure. >> manhattan district attorney, a kind of primer on law enforcement in this great city. thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us on-line@pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: on the next charlie rose a conversation with the dean of the harvard business school. and stella mckoortny, the daughter of paul mccartney and a famous fashion design never her own right. >> we have gone back after the 2008 crisis and written case on literally every example. we teach by the case method. what can we learn from these experiences we have had more cases of failure that have become a part of our kuric lamb-- curriculum than ever before. we want to make sure that students don't get so enamoured by the pros connect-- prospects of success and feel that everything they will do will lead to positive outcomes. that they need to understand what can cause failure, and what can we learn from these cases of failure what is the personal accountability that they need to have. how can they create systems which like incentive systems

that can run ahead and run amok. so i think we've learned a lot from that moment. can we promise ourselves that something like that won't happen again. i'm not sure. but have we learned a lot. certainly yes. >> i never wanted to give people an easy kind of summary of me. you know, i grew up with some watching people's perception of my parents. i was sort of an onlooker in a lot of ways. and i never wanted to make it too easy for people to sum me up i'm really intrigued by fashion but i'm really interested in the psychological side. i want to know why women choose to wear what they wear and how it makes them feel. that is what excited me. >> rose: you want to understand the people that buy your clothes. >> yeah, and i want to give them something that really works for them. that really makes their life better, that makes them feel better. it is something they can turn to. i am really-- as a woman wearing my clothes i don't wear the same thing every season. i don't buy something and throw it away.

i'm consistent how i navigate through my wardrobe and it is a reflection of how i feel. so i want to solve those issues for the women. >> . >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. monetary bazookas. the european central bank enters a new era, committing more than a trillion euro to revive the euro zone economy, but could it be a massive misfire? investors react, the dow soars more than 250 points. the s&p 500 erases its losses for the entire year so far and european stocks take off as the global markets digest the ecb's historic move. all that and more tonight. let's say it in unison for "nightly business report" for thursday january 22nd. >> good evening, everybody. on this day, it was all about europe and a massive new stimulus program