Her murky record as a central figure in San Francisco’s criminal justice system makes it difficult for many progressive Americans to take her seriously.
WASHINGTON – Kamala Harris, a likely US presidential candidate, has long faced criticism for her controversial record as a prosecutor and attorney general before rising to prominence in American politics. Critics consider her a hypocrite, claiming she enjoys the “progressive liberal” label while having taken rigid positions that oppose liberal reforms.
Throughout her law career, Harris often resisted criminal justice reforms. As San Francisco’s district attorney between 2004 and 2011 and later as the state’s attorney general, she either opposed or remained silent on reforms, raising concerns among progressives. Most notably, she fought “tooth and nail” to uphold wrongful convictions despite evidence of official misconduct, including evidence tampering and false testimony by prosecutors.
In 2010, Harris faced criticism for withholding information about a police lab technician accused of sabotaging work and stealing drugs. A memo revealed her office knew of the technician’s misconduct but failed to inform defence lawyers, leading a judge to condemn Harris for systemic violations of constitutional rights. Harris contested the ruling, citing a conflict of interest due to the judge’s husband’s public stance on evidence disclosure. She lost the case, resulting in the dismissal of over 600 cases handled by the corrupt technician.
Harris also supported state legislation which sought to criminally prosecute parents of those children who skipped elementary school. The legislation was disproportionately affecting low-income Black people, who often lack means and resources to ensure their children attend school throughout the year.
As attorney general, she made another move that shocked progressives – she appealed a federal judge’s 2014 ruling declaring the death penalty unconstitutional, arguing it undermined court protections for defendants.
In 2014, Harris declined to take a position on Proposition 47, which reduced certain low-level felonies to misdemeanours, and laughed when asked about supporting marijuana legalisation for recreational use. She opposed a bill requiring her office to investigate police shootings and statewide standards for body-worn cameras, drawing criticism from reformers including the ACLU and San Francisco’s public defender.
Harris’s record in wrongful conviction cases is particularly troubling. In 2015, her office defended the conviction of George Gage, an electrician with no criminal record accused of sexually abusing his stepdaughter. Despite discovering that the prosecutor had withheld potentially exculpatory evidence, Harris’s office argued that Gage had not properly raised the issue in lower courts. The appellate judges sent the case to mediation, but Harris refused to dismiss it, and Gage remains in prison serving a 70-year sentence.
Harris also fought to keep Daniel Larsen in prison despite evidence of his innocence and argued on technical grounds to uphold his conviction. In the case of Johnny Baca, she defended a conviction based on false testimony, relenting only after national attention embarrassed her office. She initially opposed advanced DNA testing for death row inmate Kevin Cooper, reversing her position following a New York Times exposé.
Critics argue Harris’s actions as a prosecutor often prioritised legal technicalities over justice. Her career in the American justice system stands in contrast with her carefully crafted image of being a progressive liberal, willing to take up the causes that affect Black people and other minorities.
Around the same time, a decade ago, while Harris broadly supported the use of body-worn cameras by police officers, she believed each police jurisdiction should have the flexibility to set its own standards for footage usage, retention periods, and public release protocols.
C. TRT World
