Manhattan DA drops assault case after missed filing deadline in pro-life activist incident

The Manhattan district attorney’s office has dropped the case against Brianna Rivers, the Bronx woman accused of sucker-punching pro-life activist Savannah Craven Antao during a street interview in Manhattan, after prosecutors failed to meet a discovery deadline. Rivers was charged with second-degree assault, but prosecutors dismissed the case in July when the office did not turn over evidence in time, according to the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, which plans to file a civil lawsuit on Craven Antao’s behalf. The dismissal follows a period of public dispute over prosecutorial timeliness and handling of available evidence in the urban-crime landscape that has become a focal point in ongoing political and legal debates about violence in political dialogue.

The incident occurred as Craven Antao, a pro-life activist associated with Live Action, conducted a street interview with Rivers in New York City in April. Video taken by Craven Antao’s husband captured the moment Rivers, fed up with the conversation, stopped speaking and delivered two blows to Craven Antao’s face. The reporter was knocked off-camera, and Craven Antao was left with facial injuries. The attack drew immediate attention on social media and among advocates for both sides of the abortion-debate, highlighting the volatility of on-street discussions that are often amplified by digital platforms.

The Thomas More Society, a public-interest law firm representing Craven Antao, said the injuries required emergency room care and resulted in about $3,000 in medical bills. The organization described Rivers’ actions as a brazen assault and said that Rivers walked away with both middle fingers raised as bystanders looked on. In a statement accompanying the filing, the society argued that the case underscored a broader problem: when prosecutors fail to meet discovery obligations, victims suffer and the public’s trust in the justice system erodes.

A spokesperson for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office told The New York Post that the office is taking “immediate internal steps” in light of the botched case. The spokesperson added that “every victim deserves their day in court, and our office has reached out to apologize to Ms. Craven Antao for the unacceptable error of missing the discovery deadline.” The DA’s office did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment that day. The case dismissal means Rivers will not face trial on the second-degree assault charge, at least not in this proceeding, and Craven Antao’s legal team has signaled its intent to pursue civil remedies.

Rivers, 30, of the Bronx, had been charged with second-degree assault stemming from the April confrontation. The charge carries significant penalties and is one of several statutes prosecutors pursue in cases involving alleged violent acts against individuals interviewed for news or political content. The dismissal did not, at least publicly, imply fault on Craven Antao’s reporting or the broader context of the street interview, though it does raise questions about what prosecutors must produce in discovery and by when. The revelation that crucial evidence was not disclosed in time has intensified debate around prosecutorial timeliness, with critics arguing that procedural missteps can undermine the pursuit of justice and public confidence in the system.

Craven Antao’s allies and supporters have framed the dismissal as a warning about how political rancor can spill into violence and how the criminal-justice system handles such cases when deadlines are missed. In social-media remarks, Rivers attributed the attack to what she described as provocation by Craven Antao, though the public record indicates the incident occurred during an interview outside a Manhattan location. Rivers also posted a message accusing Craven Antao of “inciting” the attack and contending that Craven Antao is an antagonist rather than a journalist, a characterization the victim’s supporters rejected as an attempt to deflect accountability.

The civil-suit trajectory was highlighted by the Thomas More Society in connection with Craven Antao. The group said it plans to file a civil complaint seeking damages related to medical costs, emotional distress, and other harms alleged to have arisen from the attack. While the criminal case has been dismissed, civil litigation remains a separate track in which the standards for proof are different, and the plaintiff’s burden is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. Advocates for Craven Antao emphasize that a civil ruling can still provide a remedy for the injuries suffered and can hold the responsible party financially accountable, independent of the criminal outcome.

The broader political and social context surrounding the incident has kept the case in public discourse. Critics of the district attorney’s office argued that the missed deadline reflects a broader problem of prosecutorial efficiency in high-profile cases, noting that the public trust can erode when victims feel justice is delayed or denied due to administrative failures. Supporters of Bragg’s office, on the other hand, pointed to ongoing efforts to reform discovery processes and to emphasize the due-process rights of all parties in criminal cases, including both victims and defendants. The office’s decision to publicly acknowledge the error and to extend an apology to Craven Antao is described by officials as an important step toward restoring confidence in the system, even as civil remedies move forward.

The assault case was not an isolated incident in a city characterized by frequent conflicts over political rhetoric and the role of journalists and activists during public interviews. The volatility surrounding street reporting on sensitive topics—such as abortion—has often sparked intense exchanges, occasionally escalating into violence. The incident has become a reference point in discussions about safety for journalists, the responsibilities of individuals during on-the-street interviews, and how prosecutors address violence in these settings when evidence is not timely shared with defense teams. Legal observers say the case will likely be cited in debates over discovery rules and the speed with which prosecutors must disclose materials to defendants.

In a separate note, Rivers published a Facebook post in which she argued that Craven Antao incited the attack by antagonizing her. The post asserted that while violence is never the answer, the scene should be understood in the context of a broader, one-sided narrative. Craven Antao’s supporters characterized the post as an attempt to shift accountability away from the events that transpired and toward the victim’s reporting. Lawyers for Craven Antao have maintained that the focus should be on the conduct of the attacker and the responsibilities of prosecutors to pursue legitimate charges once evidence is ready for review.

The case’s dismissal leaves unresolved questions about the balance between free expression, protest, and physical safety in public forums. It also creates a distinction between criminal responsibility and civil accountability in a case where an individual allegedly caused visible harm during a media encounter. The civil claim, if pursued, could provide a different path to redress for Craven Antao, as well as a potential remedy for medical expenses and other damages that have been documented by the victim and her supporters.

As the legal process evolves, the parties involved—Craven Antao, Rivers, and the firms representing them—will likely continue to litigate in parallel tracks. Prosecutors have signaled a commitment to learning from the misstep and improving internal procedures to avoid similar errors in future cases. The public and advocacy communities will watch closely to see how the civil action unfolds and whether additional cases surface that highlight similar discovery issues in high-profile disputes linking activism, journalism, and street-level political dialogue.