Integrity goes to character. Does Kamala Harris pass this test? It is a key question now she is the Democrats’ Presidential candidate after Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the Presidential ticket. Previously, she was San Francisco’s District Attorney (2004-11), and then California’s Attorney General (2011-17). Can her future be ‘unburdened by her past’, to quote from her most frequent saying?

If integrity is a vital characteristic in a prosecutor, a District Attorney and an Attorney General, it is even more vital, surely, in the potential next President of America. She nailed her colours to the mast regarding the promotion of a bail fund that helped free convicts, including murderers and serial domestic abusers, as the Washington Examiner and The Federalist reported. The Minnesota Freedom Fund paid more than US$26 million in 2020 to free over 3,000 people from remand and immigration detention.

But stories attacking her track record in the legal system have done the rounds for years. Readers can make their own assessments about Kamala Harris’ suitability for the job of President by reference to the following selection of media reports.

The New York Times, January 17, 2019

‘Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state’s attorney general, Ms Harris opposed them or stayed silent. Most troubling, Ms Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.’

Lara Bazelon, law professor and the former director of the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent in Los Angeles.

The American Prospect, July 30, 2020

‘Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), a leading candidate to be Joe Biden’s running mate, repeatedly and openly defied U.S. Supreme Court orders to reduce overcrowding in California prisons while serving as the state’s attorney general, according to legal documents reviewed by the Prospect. Working in tandem with Gov. Jerry Brown, Harris and her legal team filed motions that were condemned by judges and legal experts as obstructionist, bad-faith, and nonsensical, at one point even suggesting that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to order a reduction in California’s prison population.

‘The intransigence of this legal work resulted in the presiding judges in the case giving serious consideration to holding the state in contempt of court. Observers worried that the behaviour of Harris’s office had undermined the very ability of federal judges to enforce their legal orders at the state level, pushing the federal court system to the brink of a constitutional crisis. This extreme resistance to a Supreme Court ruling was done to prevent the release of fewer than 5,000 nonviolent offenders, whom multiple courts had cleared as presenting next to no risk of recidivism or threat to public safety.’

The Washington Post, March 7, 2019

‘SAN FRANCISCO – Kamala D. Harris was this city’s top prosecutor, running to become California’s elected attorney general, when a scandal stunned her office and threatened to upend her campaign.

‘One of Harris’s top deputies had emailed a colleague that a crime lab technician had become ‘increasingly UNDEPENDABLE for testimony.’ Weeks later, the technician allegedly took home cocaine from the lab, possibly tainting evidence and raising concerns about hundreds of cases.

‘Neither Harris nor the prosecutors working for her had informed defence attorneys of the problems– despite rules requiring such disclosure. Harris ‘failed to disclose information that clearly should have been disclosed,’ Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo wrote in a scathing decision in May 2010.

‘…Harris took the extraordinary step of dismissing about 1,000 drug-related cases, including many in which convictions had been obtained and sentences were being served.

‘A review of the case, based on court records and interviews with key players, presents a portrait of Harris scrambling to manage a crisis that her staff saw coming but for which she was unprepared. It also shows how Harris, after six years as district attorney, had failed to put in place written guidelines for ensuring that defendants were informed about potentially tainted evidence and testimony that could lead to unfair convictions.

‘Harris was elected district attorney in 2003 and re-elected in 2007.’

The Washington Examiner, September 8, 2019

‘While district attorney for San Francisco, Kamala Harris withheld evidence that could have exonerated defendants on multiple occasions, in violation of a key due process ruling by the Supreme Court.

‘Legal scholars told the Washington Examiner that Harris’ office appeared to have violated the Supreme Court’s 1963 Brady v. Maryland decision. The ruling held that prosecutors must turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defence.’

SFGATE, June 3, 2010

‘San Francisco’s public defender accused District Attorney Kamala Harris on Wednesday of refusing to turn over to defence lawyers the names of police officers with arrest records or misconduct histories whose trial testimony has helped to convict defendants.

‘Public Defender Jeff Adachi said Harris is arguing that her prosecutors first must review the names on a list being drawn up by the Police Department. Only after going to court for permission, Harris has said, would her office ultimately alert defence attorneys to the officers’ problems.

‘However, Adachi said, that process would require defence attorneys to put their faith in the district attorney to inform them of officers whose histories could result in convictions being overturned.

‘The Chronicle reported last month that scores of San Francisco officers have arrest records, convictions or misconduct histories that would have to be disclosed to defence attorneys. Adachi attacked Harris at the time as “unethical” for not having a policy to disclose those histories regularly, and said her failure had left hundreds of convictions at risk.’

Andrew L. Urban is the author of Murder by the Prosecution and The Exoneration Files – Sue Neill-Fraser (both Wilkinson Publishing).