PREET BHARARA: 'Millions of people' across the country believe police departments are biased against them

Reuters/Brendan McDermid

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney for Manhattan Preet Bharara said on Wednesday that "millions of people" across the country believe their police departments are biased against them and that he had not shied away from charging officers for misconduct.

Bharara, who is known for high-profile prosecutions of wrongdoing on Wall Street and in the Albany state capital, said at a Reuters Newsmaker event in New York that last week's shooting of five police officers at a protest in Dallas was "nothing less than heartbreaking and blood-curdling."

But he said he recognized concerns about bias in the wake of recent shootings of African Americans by police officers.

"Undeniably from time to time, there are people who are not living up to the standards of their jobs," he said.

"That is true in business; that is true, God help us, in Albany; that is true sometimes in police departments," Bharara told Reuters Editor at Large Harold Evans. "People should be held accountable."

Bharara, who is responsible for the Southern District of New York, said that as a prosecutor, he works closely with police. He called the New York police department one of the finest in the nation.

But he said his office and New York police chiefs, including current Commissioner William Bratton and former Commissioner Ray Kelly, had brought charges against officers who violated their oaths in the past.

"Nobody flinches from bringing prosecutions if the law allows it," Bharara said.

In a wide-ranging interview, Bharara also criticized what he called a "naive" decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in an insider trading case, which he said would limit prosecutors.

Reuters/Brendan McDermid

The December 2014 decision reversed the conviction of two hedge fund managers, Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson, and prompted Bharara's office to drop charges against 12 defendants in other cases, including some who had pleaded guilty.

The 2nd Circuit's ruling held that to prove insider trading, prosecutors must establish that a trader knew the provider of the relevant information had received something of "some consequence" in exchange.

"The court essentially changed the law," Bharara said. "We think that's naive."

Bharara said the Supreme Court denied his office's petition to review the case.

But he said the Supreme Court did agree to review a ruling in another insider trading case by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which could help answer the question of what determines the illegality of benefits corporate insiders receive for information they disclose.

Asked what he thought about the U.S. presidential election, Bharara referred to recent comments a Supreme Court justice made in a series of media interviews lambasting presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump: "I think it would be rude for me to get ahead of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on that."

(Editing by Amy Stevens and Lisa Von Ahn)

NOW WATCH: GREEN BERET: This is how we're different from US Navy SEALs