A cocaine-related evidence lab scandal rocked the San Francisco District Attorney's office during Kamala Harris' tenure.
According to Fox News, Vice President Kamala Harris faced significant criticism for dismissing hundreds of drug convictions and cases during her time as San Francisco District Attorney. The dismissals were a result of a scandal involving a lab technician who allegedly took cocaine from the evidence lab, potentially compromising numerous cases.
The scandal unfolded in 2010 as Harris was campaigning to become California's attorney general. It was revealed that a lab technician with a criminal background had become unreliable at work and was suspected of taking cocaine home from the evidence lab. This situation raised concerns about the integrity of drug-related cases handled by the DA's office.
One of the main issues highlighted in the scandal was the failure of Harris' office to inform defense attorneys about the problems with the lab technician and the potential contamination of evidence. This oversight violated the Supreme Court's 1963 ruling in Brady v. Maryland, which requires prosecutors to disclose evidence that could exonerate suspects.
The absence of a written procedure for handling "Brady material" in Harris' office became a significant point of contention. This oversight led to a prolonged scandal that lasted for months in 2010, raising questions about the competence and transparency of the DA's office under Harris' leadership.
Harris claimed she was unaware of the concerns surrounding the drug lab and the technician until February 2010. However, it was later revealed that her lead drug prosecutor had sent an email in November 2009 describing the state of the lab as "ridiculous" and expressing concerns about its impact on drug cases.
The Heritage Foundation's senior legal fellow, Zack Smith, criticized Harris' handling of the situation, describing it as a failure in "prosecutor 101" basics. He emphasized that informing defense attorneys about potential issues with evidence is a fundamental responsibility of any district attorney.
Initially, Harris suggested that only about 20 cases would be affected by the scandal. However, the DA's office ultimately dismissed between 600 and 1,000 drug cases, including convictions where individuals were already serving sentences.
In May 2010, Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo sharply criticized Harris for failing to disclose information that should have been shared with defense attorneys. The judge's decision placed the blame for the scandal squarely on Harris' shoulders.
During court proceedings, it was revealed that Harris' office had no written guidelines for handling Brady's material. This admission shocked Judge Massullo, who emphasized that it is the district attorney's responsibility, not the police department's, to ensure that constitutionally required information is provided to the defense.
When Harris ran for president in 2019, she took ownership of the scandal, stating, "No excuses. The buck stops with me." She explained that her office had been working on implementing a Brady policy for about two years but had not completed the guidelines due to complications regarding police personnel information.
Following the scandal, Harris' office did implement a Brady policy, which she later claimed was lauded as "a model" for other district attorneys. Harris acknowledged that the implementation took too long but expressed pride in the policy's eventual recognition by the California Supreme Court.
The cocaine lab scandal and its aftermath continue to raise questions about Harris' prosecutorial record and her ability to manage complex legal and ethical issues. As she now serves as Vice President and potentially eyes future political aspirations, this chapter of her career remains a subject of scrutiny and debate.
