Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner is a force of nature. He was a criminal defense attorney for 30 years before getting elected D.A. in 2017. He was impeached by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania House of Representatives in 2021, only to be overwhelmingly re-elected. Last year, he was re-elected again with 71 percent of the vote after being heavily outspent, in part because his alternative sentencing programs have helped lead to a sharp decrease in crime. The subject of a 2021 documentary series, Philly D.A., Krasner always speaks his mind. I interviewed him on January 23, 2026, the day before the murder of Alex Pretti. So almost all of our conversation is about the murder of Renee Good. But afterwards, he sent me some preliminary thoughts on where the Pretti murder case might go. We also talked about how the obscene Philadelphia Eagles chant helps explain why Trump is so far avoiding Philadelphia, his concerns about Josh Shapiro, and other subjects.
Subscribe to Old Goats with Jonathan Alter, where this interview originally appeared.
***
JONATHAN ALTER: What’s your early take on the cold-blooded murder of Alex Pretti and the odds of prosecuting his killers?
LARRY KRASNER: Despite the limited information available, the video is very damning. And the apparent cover-up by the feds cannot erase that video. Any great prosecutor, which [Hennepin County Attorney] Mary Moriarty is, wants all the facts. I have no doubt she is trying hard to get all the facts. [Whether the killers will be indicted] is a question for her. But the outrage over what was done to Alex Pretti says a lot about what a jury would do.
JONATHAN ALTER: So the law says—and you’ve been saying this on television—that if you murder somebody, you can be arrested by local authorities. So why hasn’t Jonathan Ross been arrested in Minnesota? He shot somebody in cold blood on January 7 and he hasn’t been arrested. Would he have been arrested if it had been done in Philadelphia?
LARRY KRASNER: Let me tell you as much as I know. I actually know Mary Moriarty rather well. I’m not speaking about the attorney general, [Keith Ellison] who is more of a national figure. Moriarty is a real reformer and the real deal when it comes to prosecuting police or other law enforcement when they commit crimes.
That, of course, means she’s been maligned, abused, and mistreated by the right, and she’s not running again. Not running again is often good news when you want a prosecutor who’s going to do something difficult, because politics enter into it less.
Would I bring charges? Based on the very limited information we have, the answer is yes.
Do I suspect they’re going to bring charges in Minnesota? Based on the limited information I have, yes. And in fairness, I’m not a Minnesota lawyer. I don’t know all the ins and outs of their law, but my guess is that they’re going to bring it.
There’s a lot of talk these days about how you can’t bring the case because you don’t have the gun. That’s not true. Of course, you can bring a case without the gun. Homicide cases are brought without a gun all the time. That doesn’t shut it down.
There is enough information in the publicly available video to establish probable cause, bring the case, and present it to a jury.
JONATHAN ALTER: How hard will it be for the prosecutor in Minneapolis to get a writ of mandamus [a court order compelling DHS to turn over evidence]?
LARRY KRASNER: That’s probably the area where I have the least expertise, although I practiced in federal court for 25 years. One of the challenges here is that this is relatively uncharted territory. Usually, the federal government reins in unruly local law enforcement. Here, the script is flipped.
There isn’t a lot of precedent, and it will matter a great deal which judge is assigned. If I were the judge, it wouldn’t be hard for me. I believe in the truth coming out about the murder of someone who said, “I’m not mad at you.” Assuming there is sufficient law, which I believe there is, to compel the federal government to provide information about a murder case a state is trying to prosecute, I think it’s possible.
There’s also a broader issue that will likely be fleshed out later. There is a strong state interest in prosecuting crimes that occur within a state’s jurisdiction. The Tenth Amendment supports that. In addition, the president cannot pardon state crimes.
Constitutionally, there was meant to be a separate authority. We are a federal system. There is a strong argument that the federal government should not interfere with state prosecutions. Even people on the right who talk endlessly about law and order should recognize the compelling state interest in prosecuting crimes.
I’m optimistic. I don’t know who the judge will be or what the filings will look like, but I think federal courts will eventually compel the release of at least some of the relevant information. Because the statute of limitations for homicide is typically the life of the defendant, there may be a reason to let this take its course so prosecutors have all the evidence.
That said, even if the federal government destroyed evidence, could prosecutors bring a case tomorrow? Yes. Reluctantly, because prosecutors want all the evidence, but they could present what they have to a jury and potentially secure a conviction.
Another reason to pursue discovery is that there may be evidence of additional crimes. In many states, obstruction of justice, evidence tampering, and false statements are crimes.
JONATHAN ALTER: So these additional crimes would be a cover-up or destruction of evidence in the Jonathan Ross case?
LARRY KRASNER: Yes. We’ve already seen one lie after another from federal authorities. Even Trump stated that this federal officer was “rammed” by a vehicle. That appears to be false.
There’s a real possibility that if you dig into the paperwork, you’ll find ICE agents or officials lying. Those are crimes under state law in almost every jurisdiction. You can’t lie to the police, even if you are the police. You can’t lie to law enforcement.
So there may be an additional set of charges and criminal liability for other ICE agents or officials. What the federal government appears to be doing is hiding information.
JONATHAN ALTER: How about the Supremacy Clause? Are there arguments Republicans will make that the Supremacy Clause means the federal government is the varsity and the locals are the JV?
LARRY KRASNER: They’ll make spurious arguments, yes.
The Supremacy Clause does not say what JD Vance has claimed it says. It does not grant absolute immunity. That language appears nowhere in the case law.
Not long ago, my office successfully prosecuted a member of the U.S. military in state court for sexually assaulting another member of the military during training. If the Supremacy Clause meant what some people claim, that prosecution could not have happened.
If that were the law, then why did Alvin Bragg convict Donald Trump in state court of 34 felonies?
JONATHAN ALTER: I was in the courtroom every day for that trial and wrote a book about it called American Reckoning. Without cameras, people outside don’t know half of what happened.
LARRY KRASNER: Exactly. Convictions of powerful people in state court do happen. Qualified immunity is largely a civil concept, tied to Section 1983 lawsuits.
In the criminal context, federal officers have only narrow qualified immunity if they violate state law while doing no more than what is reasonably necessary to carry out their duties.
Here, we’re talking about an unarmed woman in a car, engaged in what appears to be protected First Amendment activity, trying to leave, saying “I’m not mad at you,” and then being shot.
For example, if ICE agents are speeding while chasing a suspect, that might be justified. If they jaywalk while following someone they have specific information about, that could be a qualified immunity defense.
But if they kill a bystander during a chase, that’s a much harder question. There are decades of policies discouraging high-speed chases because of the danger to civilians.
If a death occurs because actions were no more than reasonably necessary, there might be immunity. But that’s very different from what we’re talking about here.
Here, we’re talking about an unarmed woman in a car, engaged in what appears to be protected First Amendment activity, trying to leave, saying “I’m not mad at you,” and then being shot.
That does not appear necessary or reasonable to carry out any legitimate duty. There would be no immunity.
JONATHAN ALTER: How about the second and third shots? Isn’t that especially damaging?
LARRY KRASNER: I’m not certain whether it was two or three shots, but it was at least two. Hypothetically, I would be willing to bet that the fatal shot turns out to be a head shot, and that the entry and exit wounds will support the conclusion that the front of the car posed no danger when the shot was fired.
That’s the kind of evidence juries focus on. If you were in such danger, why were you shooting someone through the side window? Was that really necessary to carry out your duties?
JONATHAN ALTER: There’s clear probable cause for an arrest here, so they’re looking for a novel defense. I heard something about an “active duty” defense, and J.D. Vance has been talking about “absolute immunity.” Do these apply here?
LARRY KRASNER: When you have the vice president of the United States, a Yale Law graduate, claiming there is “absolute immunity,” you’re in the land of falsehoods. That concept does not exist in the law.
If there is something being called an “active duty defense,” it’s likely a word salad assembled from other doctrines with no real legal basis.
When you have the vice president of the United States, a Yale Law graduate, claiming there is “absolute immunity,” you’re in the land of falsehoods. That concept does not exist in the law.
JONATHAN ALTER: Do you think ICE hasn’t come to Philadelphia because they know they’d get pushback from you?
LARRY KRASNER: That’s possible. I also think Trump prefers to pick on deep-blue states. Pennsylvania is more purple. He won here by a very thin margin the first time, about 40,000 votes.
JONATHAN ALTER: You were saying Philadelphia has a particular attitude.
LARRY KRASNER: Yes. It reminds me of Jason Kelce’s speech after the Eagles won the Super Bowl.
The chant was, “We’re from Philly. Fucking Philly. No one likes us. We don’t care.”
That’s Philadelphia. Don’t mess with us. We have enough problems. We’re a city that’s been maligned and underestimated, and we don’t care.
That’s not the place to bring [troops] unless you’re looking for provocation. That kind of move invites escalation. And escalation is exactly what some people want, so they can flip the narrative and justify cracking down further.
JONATHAN ALTER: At what point does rhetoric about a police state or fascism become accurate? When do we cross that line?
LARRY KRASNER: If people can still vote in the midterms without significant interference, I don’t think you can say democracy has ended.
That said, individuals in places like Minneapolis and California have already experienced police-state tactics. If you wait until it’s fully a police state to call it one, it’s too late.
I’m optimistic we can avoid that without Ukraine-style resistance. I don’t think we’re there yet. People can still vote and change power peacefully.
But these midterms may be the last real chance to stop the elimination of elections. A massive, unprecedented turnout is essential. If that happens, the fever may break.
JONATHAN ALTER: You’ve been critical of Governor [Josh] Shapiro.
LARRY KRASNER: The criticism is about why he isn’t speaking out. [Illinois Governor J.B. ] Pritzker is vocal. Where is Shapiro?
Shapiro’s media style is very processed and cautious. If there were a “Profile in Courage,” this might be a profile in quiet. Maybe cowardice is the better word.
JONATHAN ALTER: What’s the reasoning there?
LARRY KRASNER: Josh Shapiro has surrounded himself with Republicans his entire career. He grew up with privilege and follows a Clinton-style approach: triangulate, stay safe, don’t rock the boat.
JONATHAN ALTER: Among the people being mentioned for president, does anyone light your fire?
LARRY KRASNER: Not really. Politicians believe only people already elected are qualified to run. That ignores the fact that everyone was an outsider the first time. What matters is communication, integrity, and the willingness to challenge power.
JONATHAN ALTER: Is there any outsider who comes to mind? My friends and I were talking about Mark Cuban, but he’s not running.
LARRY KRASNER: Think about AOC. She was a bartender and an exceptional communicator. She built a massive following by being authentic.
What did Democrats do? They treated her badly and then asked her to teach them social media. She’s probably not ready yet. Maybe in eight years.
It’s not about a specific person. It’s about being seen as an outsider. It shouldn’t be someone entrenched. Or if it is, they should be young and courageous.
JONATHAN ALTER: Trump looks weak. Does that change 2026?
LARRY KRASNER: I’m optimistic. Video matters. Polling on the economy is terrible for him. We could see the most positive out-party midterm in 50 years. Trump’s biggest problem is himself. But Democrats are still playing by the rules while he uses a flamethrower.
JONATHAN ALTER: So what’s the right response? Newsom, Pritzker?
LARRY KRASNER: Stand up. Don’t appease bullies. Knock their legs out early. Pritzker has been effective. Standing up creates a chorus. I’ve been relentless. Trump once called me out by name at a rally. It got under his skin.
JONATHAN ALTER: He doesn’t like prosecutors.
LARRY KRASNER: No, he doesn’t. And getting under his skin matters.
JONATHAN ALTER: Before I let you go, what happened to John Fetterman?
LARRY KRASNER: It’s a fiasco. When Trump praises you, that’s a problem. He had a serious medical event, then things got stranger. He’s aligned himself with MAGA. I don’t see a future for him as a Democratic candidate.
JONATHAN ALTER: Why didn’t Democrats stop Biden from running again?
LARRY KRASNER: I did speak out and got in trouble for it. I thought he was mentally impaired. I was outraged by his role in the Clarence Thomas hearings. He gave us Thomas for life.
JONATHAN ALTER: Why did Obama pick him?
LARRY KRASNER: From the outside, Biden always seemed like someone who hung around long enough to become effective.
JONATHAN ALTER: I knew him fairly well. He wasn’t brilliant, but he was deeply informed. The mistake was running again, as I first argued in January 2023. After that, I wavered but fantasized about an intervention. In his case, familiarity bred respect, not contempt.
LARRY KRASNER: That’s fair. I’ve mostly seen the caricature. But running again was tragic.
JONATHAN ALTER: Thanks for this. It was a pleasure.
LARRY KRASNER: Thank you. Take care.
