Kamala Harris, now serving as Vice President, has had a spotlight cast on her past career as a prosecutor, owing to her swift rise in positioning for the Democratic ticket in 2024. As a result, there has been a flurry of coverage about her earlier work in criminal justice. Just recently, my associate Lakeidra Chavis and I highlighted a few critical aspects of her past practices. Continuing that theme, this week, we take a magnifying lens to some of the significant case studies and programs that marked her tenure as the District Attorney of San Francisco and then as the Attorney General of California. Many facets of these topics have regained traction in national political conversations and will likely continue to do so.
Ankush Khardori, erstwhile federal prosecutor, points out in his recent article for Politico that evaluating a prosecutor’s career isn’t as straightforward as assessing a few prominent cases; there are many complexities involved that cannot be glossed over. Such nuances are particularly difficult to encapsulate within the limited scope of political messaging and debate exchanges. This detailed overview of certain programs and cases associated with Harris is meant to offer readers a more comprehensive understanding, especially useful when they come across references to her work.
One of the defining moments in Harris’ professional trajectory occurred when she took on a case involving the fatal shooting of a local police officer, Isaac Espinoza, by a San Francisco resident in 2004. Given her staunch anti-capital punishment stance, Harris declined to seek the death sentence, despite immense pressure from police unions, the victim’s family, and leading state Democrats. Her stance instigated a sharp fracture in her working relationship with the city’s police force – a change echoed by individuals privy to both parties’ perspectives.
The Trump campaign has leveraged this case to criticize Harris, and the strained relations between her and law enforcement agencies extended into her initial bid for the California Attorney General’s office in 2010. However, she managed to mend these relationships considerably during her first term, earning the support of many law enforcement groups for her successful re-election campaign. The path to rebuilding these partnerships has been eloquently outlined in a 2016 feature by the New York Times Magazine.
During her time as state attorney general, Harris contested a federal court ruling that would have brought an end to the death penalty in California—a decision that brought disappointment from anti-death penalty activist groups. Harris maintained that the ruling had legal flaws, although she personally disagreed with capital punishment. This view was later validated by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Harris has often expressed that there were times during her tenure as Attorney General when her personal beliefs were at odds with the legal stance she was required to uphold, given her role as the state’s legal representative. This stance was particularly apparent when she pushed for the release of a lower number of prisoners than what was dictated by court orders following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The state’s overcrowded prison conditions were decried by the Court as falling in the realm of unusual and cruel punishment.
Although Harris’s involvement has not been made explicit, a settlement was reached in 2015, stipulating that gender affirmation surgery had to be considered by the department for incarcerated individuals on a case-by-case basis. Her time as San Francisco District Attorney also saw the launch of the Back on Track diversion program, which was innovative for its time. This program, envisaged by Harris—a economics major—was a balancing act of incentives and disincentives.
Michael Troncoso, who had worked with Harris during the time, affirms that the Back on Track program was unconventional for the mid-2000s. This program allowed successful graduates to have their guilty pleas nullified and removed from their criminal records.
The program, internal data indicates, graduated between 30 and 100 individuals annually, boasting a re-offense rate of roughly 10%—a stark contrast with the 50% rate for comparable populations across the state. The philosophy behind this program, Harris elucidated in her 2009 publication ‘Smart on Crime’, was to employ every conceivable method to enhance the safety levels within communities.
A case that occurred during Harris’s tenure but hasn’t received public commentary from her involves Jamal Trulove. He was prosecuted by Harris’s office in 2008 for the murder of his friend Seu Kuka in San Francisco. Moreover, as Attorney General in 2010, Harris’s office denied the DNA testing sought by the lawyers representing Kevin Cooper, a quadruple homicide convict who pleaded not guilty.
However, following a New York Times article in 2018 that exposed the investigative misconduct in Cooper’s case, Harris advocated for DNA testing. An exhaustive state-commissioned investigation subsequently conducted DNA tests, declaring last year that the evidence overwhelmingly confirmed Cooper’s guilt.
During her tenure as California’s Attorney General in 2011, Harris rejected a $4 billion settlement stemming from the fraudulent foreclosure practices of several leading mortgage lenders. This was linked to their practices that laid the groundwork for the 2009 financial crisis. The settlement was being spearheaded by attorneys general from various states, under the Obama administration’s guidance, advocating for swift settlements for a lower amount.
However, Harris, dismissively referring to the settlement as ‘crumbs on the table’, managed to garner a more substantial $25 billion settlement for California. Harris’s adoption of anti-truancy laws was a controversial move during her prosecutorial career. The local implementation saw no incarceration of parents, with the fines being exception rather than the rule and relatively small when levied.
Harris’s campaign aide has publicly lauded the effectiveness of the anti-truancy program. As Attorney General, Harris expanded this initiative to other parts of California through a statewide anti-truancy law. Implementation of this law saw some parents subjected to stringent penalties.
Among them was Cheree Peoples, subjected to a very public arrest in Orange County, Southern California in 2013. Harris has affirmed her focus on truancy while also admitting regret over the handling of certain cases under the statewide law.
In sum, throughout her career, Harris has been at the center of several controversial and complex cases and initiatives. From her role as the District Attorney of San Francisco to the Attorney General of California, Harris’s actions and positions have reflected a balance of legal obligation and personal conviction.