NYT Opinion: Kamala Harris Was Not a 'Progressive Prosecutor'

[ucrdem]

This is a paywalled article by professor Lara Bazelon that appeared in the New York Times on Jan. 17, 2019. NYT: "Ms. Bazelon is a law professor and the former director of the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent in Los Angeles." To respect the DU rule I selected four out of two dozen paragraphs:

..............................

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.

Consider her record as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011. Ms. Harris was criticized in 2010 for withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of “intentionally sabotaging” her work and stealing drugs from the lab. After a memo surfaced showing that Ms. Harris’s deputies knew about the technician’s wrongdoing and recent conviction, but failed to alert defense lawyers, a judge condemned Ms. Harris’s indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights. Ms. Harris contested the ruling by arguing that the judge, whose husband was a defense attorney and had spoken publicly about the importance of disclosing evidence, had a conflict of interest. Ms. Harris lost. More than 600 cases handled by the corrupt technician were dismissed.

(snip)

Ms. Harris was similarly regressive as the state’s attorney general. When a federal judge in Orange County ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional in 2014, Ms. Harris appealed. In a public statement, she made the bizarre argument that the decision “undermines important protections that our courts provide to defendants.” (The approximately 740 men and women awaiting execution in California might disagree).

(snip)

And then there’s Kevin Cooper, the death row inmate whose trial was infected by racism and corruption. He sought advanced DNA testing to prove his innocence, but Ms. Harris opposed it. (After The New York Times’s exposé of the case went viral, she reversed her position.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html
.....................

There are more examples but basically it boils down to Harris consistently taking positions that were politically convenient rather than progressive or just, including her defense of the death penalty. Also regarding Kevin Cooper: Bazelon mentioned in her NPR "On the Media" segment that Harris refused to allow exculpatory DNA testing until Jerry Brown finally intervened at the end of his term to allow it. And by that time she was out of office.

Note to jury: this is an New York Times op-ed, not a RW source, and the professor makes her case based on facts from a progressive point-of-view. There is nothing RW or defamatory about it.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I read this when it first came out, and it's not really a smear job, but leaves out...

that much of what she did was normal in a prosecutor's office-- stand your ground and let it play out in the courts and the press.

Her opinions as Senator and candidate would likely be different.

[Jake Stern]

3. How do you fully trust someone who "let it play out" by fighting to keep innocent people in prison?

Just because something is "normal" doesn't make it moral. She worked her butt off to keep an innocent man in prison by citing prior court rulings on time limits when she could have done the moral thing and dropped the case letting him go free.

To me citing nitpicky rulings to keep an innocent man in prison is far worse a thing than someone opposing busing.

I will hold my nose and vote for her if she's the nominee but REFUSE to support her in the primary until she owns up to working to keep an innocent man in prison and apologizes to Daniel Larsen.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

5. Sadly, it's a problem.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. It's disqualifying.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Lol

There you go again.

[BannonsLiver]

89. That's the strategy!

One by one every candidate is “disqualified” by Sanders supporters so in the end only Bernie is left so he has to be the nominee.

Unfortunately for them, in the real world Bernie is tanking.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

23. I'm not gonna go that far, but, it doesn't matter...Kamala's not going to be the Democratic nominee.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ucrdem]

26. Have to agree with you there.

Her veep prospects are looking pretty dim too. And if Joe loses she's going to have to face some tough questions when her senate term is up for reelection.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

41. Yes, Kamala is probably also out for VP consideration. Not sure though Joe

could put the blame on Kamala if he loses, such that it would affect her chances of re-election in the Senate.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[zanana1]

90. I don't mean this to sound rude, but...

Do we know Joe's state of health? (Or the date of his latest physical)? I like Joe alot but I'm worried.

[Control-Z]

97. What are you worried about?

Specifically.

[zanana1]

98. I'm worried about his age.

I'm pushing 70 and I know what happens to some people that age. I'm not talking about dementia. At that age, a physical illness can bring you down in a second. He's not the only one of the "older" candidates. I hope they all pick young vice-presidents.

[Control-Z]

99. So you're younger than Warren, eh?

Are you worried about her age? Her health? If you're already feeling it, might she?

These older women can be so fragile.

[Hoyt]

6. Bout like trusting someone who teamed up with segregationists to keep their

schools “pure.”

[emmaverybo]

72. Sorry, but some very serious concerns here and this article not the first or last to raise them.NT

[4now]

2. I never found anything progressive about her - Just a typical prosecutor

Trying to advance their political career at the expense of (usually powerless) others.

[pnwmom]

4. Almost no prosecutor would be considered a progressive prosecutor.

The issue is what kind of Senator she's been, and what she learned from her time as a prosecutor.

[Blue_true]

7. Excellent point.

We have one in Florida. She refuses to ask for the death penalty in even the most severe cases. She was publicly and visciously attacked by then governor Rick Scott, who took a high profile police killing case from her and gave it to a guy that called for the death penalty (the killer is a real asshole, not a likeable person at all, but killing him while he is in chains, like Scott wants, solves nothing).

Look at what is happening in Chicago. A prosecutor is trying not to run people through the criminal justice system for minor crimes and she is being investigated and attacked for her position.

From what I have read about her, Harris was a prosecutor that sought justice and protection of victims, in some cases that meant making choices that some frown on now.

[ucrdem]

8. In her 2019 memoir she represents herself as a progressive DA and AG.

I can't copy from it, but you can read much of it here:

https://www.amazon.com/Truths-We-Hold-American-Journey/dp/0525560718

Chapter 2 for example is titled "A Voice for Justice," and suggests that she got into both races in order to provide greater access to legal services to the marginalized; on page 66 she says it's "past time" to legalize marijuana. But according to Bazelon she did neither.

Based on what I've read of the book, I have to say that Bazelon provides more compelling evidence. The evidence that Harris returns to over and over is that not many prosecutors looked like her. Fine, but that doesn't automatically mean she acted any differently from the other prosecutors.

[pnwmom]

10. When she was a prosecutor, she wasn't progressive by DU STANDARDS, but I can believe

that she was more progressive than most prosecutors.

[ucrdem]

14. She had a scheme to criminally prosecute parents of chronically absent elementary school students.

Who do you think got caught up in that mess? The poor and marginally functional families. That's not very progressive.

[bigtree]

17. that's patently untrue

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2019, 12:17 AM - Edit history (1)

... The goal was not to threaten all truant kids’ parents with prosecution; Katy Miller, who helped implement the program as a prosecutor under Harris, said that it’s meant to use a step-by-step process of escalating intervention and consequences to push parents to get their kids to school.

And the cases that get to prosecution are extreme — typically parents whose kids have missed more than 30, 60, or 80 days out of a 180-day school year. Miller had one case in court in which a child missed 178 days.

When a student is regularly truant, the school district first gets involved by sending out letters to parents telling them that their child is missing class. Then, the school can call parents into a meeting with school staff and sometimes support service providers to figure out what’s going on. The next step is a meeting with the school attendance review board — where various government agencies and social services, as well as school staff, can be present — to figure out what might be contributing to the truancy. That meeting typically concludes with a contract that dictates who’s going to do what to make sure a kid can get to school.

If all of that fails, the school can refer the case to the prosecutor’s office, which can threaten prosecution if there’s no progress on attendance. The thinking, Miller said, is that by then a parent has already been offered help but clearly needs an extra push to take it and improve a child’s attendance. And if a parent agrees to take steps to improve a child’s attendance, the charges are dropped.

“The way this model has always very intentionally been designed in every aspect of it has been to not get to conviction and incarceration,” she told me. “It has been to use a problem-solving court model to get people to access the services that they need to overcome whatever barriers they have in their life that are keeping them from getting their young child to school.”

At most, 20 parents have been prosecuted in a typical year, Miller said, and none have been jailed. The charge used by the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office doesn’t even carry the potential for jail time; instead, it’s a lower-level infraction that can at worst result in a fine. (The fine is typically $100 per child in San Francisco, but fines can go up to thousands of dollars under state law.)

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/7/18202084/kamala-harris-truancy-prosecutor-president-2020

[ucrdem]

18. Only your subject line is untrue. The rest confirms exactly what I posted. nt

[pnwmom]

24. She didn't have a "scheme" to criminally prosecute these parents. She successfully

used a negative consequence to make them send their children to school -- which was in the children's best interest. And she succeeded without needing to send any parents to jail.

[ismnotwasm]

20. It leaves out an enormous amount of context.

I’ve already through all this material, origins, reasons, response. Took the time to research it.

Kamala Harris is a one of a kind candidate, One im proud to support. There will of this kind of thing unfortunately.

Of note though, this “bad prosecutor” push was all the rage a couple of months ago. Interesting to see it brought up here, now.

[StarfishSaver]

22. I don't think ANY prosecutor could be progressive by DU standards, by definitions

[pnwmom]

25. I agree, StarfishSaver. I also think that having been a prosecutor is a part of her resume

that could help her draw support from centrists and independents -- which we will need, because there aren't enough DU-style progressive voters to elect a President.

[StarfishSaver]

27. +1

[ucrdem]

28. But she's running as a progressive, remember?

At least she was last debate. This week's might be different.

[pnwmom]

29. She IS a progressive. But she's not 100% pure progressive, and that's what most of DU expects.

If you look at her record on Progressive punch.org, her voting record puts her at #3 most progressive in the Senate.

DUers can't criticize her for her voting record, so they decide to focus on her years as a prosecutor instead.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

[ucrdem]

32. Now she is. But now she's a senator from California.

Bazelon's point is that when it really counted, in a desperately needed way for many, she wasn't.

[pnwmom]

35. Which CA prosecutors were more progressive than she was? Can you name some? n/t

[ucrdem]

37. Which ran for President on their "progressive prosecutor" laurels?

None that I am aware of.

[pnwmom]

38. She is the #3 most progressive Senator in the Senate, and she was as progressive

as any prosecutor in CA.

Your attitude would bar any prosecutor from running, and allow only defense attorneys. So someone like Robert F. Kennedy wouldn't be eligible, either. If you looked at his record, he wasn't very "progressive" as a prosecutor, whatever that means.

[ucrdem]

39. That's some impressive pretzel!

[bigtree]

42. Biden wrote regressive regulations into the crime bill which tied prosecutors' hands

...really little room to criticize prosecutors for carrying out laws Congress legislates.

They're there to enforce the laws, not make them.

[ucrdem]

43. Now you're trying to blame Biden for Harris's lackluster record?

Good luck with that!

[pnwmom]

46. It seems hypocritical to criticize a prosecutor for acting as a prosecutor

but not to criticize a Senator for helping to enact non-progressive criminal law legislation.

[ucrdem]

47. LOL, who is not criticizing Biden? Anyone?

[bigtree]

49. keep up

...two separate points;

1) Biden actually WROTE, PROMOTED, and helped pass regressive laws relating to criminal justice.

2) Kamala Harris was tasked as AG with enforcing laws, not legislating them.

[ucrdem]

50. You're actually blaming Biden for her lousy record.

I'll be danged.

[bigtree]

55. you keep saying that

...but it only rings true in your head.

I'm blaming Biden for his, and asserting that he's more responsible for regressive criminal justice laws and outcomes than this liberal prosecutor. Biden's going to have to explain his role in enacting regressive sentencing regulations, among other abominations in the '94 Crime Bill.

[questionseverything]

58. prosecuting people with illegal evidence is not "enforcing" laws

if this info was about a white repub prosecutor you would be beside yourself as we all should be

[bigtree]

62. you misrepresented the issue

...and posit this inflammatory nonsense.

The author inflated Harris' role in the process of nullifying the 600 cases with tainted evidence. Citing a conflict of interest with the judge isn't 'contesting the ruling.'

[questionseverything]

64. what part are you sayng isn't true?

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.

Consider her record as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011. Ms. Harris was criticized in 2010 for withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of “intentionally sabotaging” her work and stealing drugs from the lab. After a memo surfaced showing that Ms. Harris’s deputies knew about the technician’s wrongdoing and recent conviction, but failed to alert defense lawyers, a judge condemned Ms. Harris’s indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights. Ms. Harris contested the ruling by arguing that the judge, whose husband was a defense attorney and had spoken publicly about the importance of disclosing evidence, had a conflict of interest. Ms. Harris lost. More than 600 cases handled by the corrupt technician were dismissed.

///////////////////////////////

if you are saying something isn't true harris should sue, since she hasn't I would say its true

its sad the team spirit mentality leads to defending this kind of thing

[bigtree]

67. the part about Harris prosecuting people with illegal evidence

...and you can save the 'team spirit' thing.

The article is fast and loose about her actual role in the prosecutions. There's no evidence that she knew the evidence was tainted, and citing a conflict of interest by the judge involved isn't 'contesting the ruling.'

[questionseverything]

94. article says, her deputies knew and she went to court to keep the convictions in tact

I want a nominee that believes in the Constitution


<shrugs>

[bigtree]

95. the article is full of shit

..it was the AG that decided nullify the many convictions that were dismissed.

The judge only ordered the one case dismissed.

Do more than rely on this one shitstirring article.

[pnwmom]

66. Harris decided to dismiss cases of about 1000 people because of concerns

about possibly tainted evidence, related to an "undependable" employee who was caught with cocaine.

In the end she dismissed 1000 cases to make sure no innocent people went to jail -- and yet the purity police will forever criticize her for the fact that the situation happened at all.

[ucrdem]

69. Apparently she had to after contesting the ruling and losing. nt

[pnwmom]

76. The ruling didn't require her to dismiss all 1000 cases.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/crime-lab-scandal-rocked-kamala-harriss-term-as-san-francisco-district-attorney/2019/03/06/825df094-392b-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html?utm_term=.3982fc787a80

Some of Harris’s aides raised the possibility that only those cases with a proven taint should be dismissed, not all of those that might have been affected. “And I said, ‘No, we have to deal with the fact this now called into question the integrity of the system,’?” Harris said. “There has to be consequences paid for that.”

[bigtree]

77. +1

[questionseverything]

57. illegal prosecutions are not what normal prosecutors do..at least i hope not

600 cases that were illegally prosecuted?

how did she even come out of it with her law liscence ?

[Hav]

83. That is a crucial and overlooked point here

Only seeing it from the point of view of whether a prosecutor is considered progressive or not progressive is pretty irrelevant. It's something completely different than prosecutors who are only interested in their conviction rates regardless of whether the defendants are innocent or not or whether evidence to convict innocent people was fabricated by corrupt officials in the process. To see that as the normal work of a prosecutor would be very troublesome.
Progressive vs. Not progressive is not the major issue at all.

[questionseverything]

93. exactly

prosecutors should be interested in justice

that doesn't seem to be the case here

[YOHABLO]

9. Okay, thanks for this. Now I have to decide whether she can run an entire country.

I like Kamala Harris's toughness, but like Biden's past decisions, all things must be considered.

[ucrdem]

11. If she's selecting soft targets where there's no socially acceptable defense,

I would say her toughness isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[Kaleva]

13. Here are links to 3 other threads posted here at DU

"Kamala Harris Was Not a 'Progressive Prosecutor'By Lara Bazelon Ms. Bazelon is a law professor and
the former director of the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent in Los Angele "

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287182236

"Kamala Harris Was Not a 'Progressive Prosecutor'"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211685726

"No 'good' time for this, but here it is: Kamala Harris Was Not a 'Progressive Prosecutor'"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211759707

People here have been beating this horse since January and it's pretty much dead by now.

[ucrdem]

15. Thank you, those will make very interesting reading I'm sure.

I dropped a hint earlier but no one supplied me with a link. Now you've supplied three. That's how it works I guess. Anyway thanks.

[Kaleva]

16. Site search works well. It took just a couple of minutes.

[ucrdem]

19. The NPR piece didn't mention DU

or I would have.

[marybourg]

30. In my era, progressive lawyers became

defense attorneys, not prosecutors.

[bigtree]

52. who does that leave to prosecute predatory lenders,

..who would have prosecuted that historic mortgage settlement case that helped more than 84,000 California families?

Who would have prosecuted and won the $1.1 billion settlement against the for-profit (now defunct) Corinthian Colleges for predatory and unlawful practices?

Who would have made it their major priority as AG, prosecuting transnational gangs known for trafficking drugs, firearms, and humans? Her office led a groundbreaking study on the impacts of transnational criminal organizations and human trafficking in California.

Who are you leaving to protect and defend us in court from predators, crooks, and violent criminals?

[marybourg]

68. Not-so-progressive lawyers.

There were plenty of those.

[bigtree]

75. this prosecutor

...as DA from 2004 to 2011, Harris opposed both Proposition 22 and Proposition 8, which limited marriage to one man and one woman. Though they passed in 2000 and 2008, respectively, both were struck down while she was in office. As San Francisco DA, Harris also created a Hate Crimes Unit aimed at prosecuting hate crimes committed against LGBTQ teens in school.

Harris’s early support of marriage equality in California directly laid the legal groundwork for the US Supreme Court’s decision in 2012 that same-sex couples have the right to marry. The Court cited California’s success in striking down Prop 8 in its opinion. Within hours of the decision, plaintiffs to the Supreme Court case Kris Perry and Sandy Stier became the first gay couple to wed in San Francisco, and Harris officiated their wedding.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/16/15808396/kamala-harris-democrat-rising-star-interrupted

Progressive prosecutors do things like this.

[Cha]

31. Mahalo, ucr.. Harris & Booker are busy

vetting Biden.. absolutely no reason they can't be vetted, too.

[ucrdem]

34. Aloha Cha!

Yes and that reminds me, here's the July 26 NPR "On the Media" interview with Professor Bazelon that raised the issue:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/kamala-harris-progressive-prosecutor

It goes through the material in the NYT article but adds some fresh details so it's worth listening to, at least, if you're on a treadmill at the gym!

[Cha]

40. Mahalo! And, of course, this wouldn't

even be an issue with me if Harris hadn't started the Extreme Vetting Process with Biden.. so much so it gave a Bounce!

[ucrdem]

48. Exactly.

And I'm going to bite my tongue about what she's putting out as evidence of her progressive record except to say that she was a very cute kid.

[emmaverybo]

74. Aloha, Cha and Mahalo for pointing this important fact out. Booker and Harris have "brought it

on,” not because either mistrusts Biden or truly do not believe in his life-time commitment to civil
rights, but because undermining his AA support is advantageous to their respective campaigns.

[Cha]

80. Yeah, so horrible... going after

his strengths in the most disingenuous ways. What a powder keg.

Thank You for pointing out that..

Biden's leading with POC because of years of his own record and doing an excellent job as President Obama's VP.. so many of us haven't forgotten that.. Black and White

He(Biden) can step in and become President.

Someone who is independent enough who can pushback and give me perspective and catch any blind spots I may have..

Somebody who in his heart cares about the American People and the American Dream and is willing to fight for them as hard as he can

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=214073

[lapucelle]

33. It's an opinion piece published 7 months ago. The information at the sources the op-ed writer cites

does not support her claims.

Here are the news stories that the op-ed writer links to.

(The links are right there within the text of the opinion piece.)

What's especially troubling is the opinion writer's conflation of Senator Harris's name with the name of the office of the attorney general. It's either very sloppy or deliberately misleading.

It's also puzzling why an attorney (like the opinion writer) doesn't understand why it was crucial to appeal the judge's death penalty ruling when it was based on the premise that "the appeals process takes too long". Why on earth would any lawyer interested in preserving civil liberties want that precedent to take root in state criminal law?

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-rips-Harris-office-for-hiding-problems-3263797.php
http://www.sfexaminer.com/conflict-of-interest-denied-in-crime-lab-scandal-case/
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-death-penalty-appeal-20140821-story.html
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Kamala-Harris-takes-measured-approach-to-probing-7955937.php
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-issues-statement-appeal-court-ruling-california

[ucrdem]

36. The NPR interview updates the op-ed and is from Friday:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/kamala-harris-progressive-prosecutor

[lapucelle]

44. How did an interview update an op-ed piece?

Did she correct her misrepresentation of what the cited sources actually said?

Did she concede that she now understands now why it was important to appeal a judge's death penalty ruling when it is based on the premise that "the appeals process takes too long"?

Did she admit that she now understands why any lawyer interested in preserving civil liberties would be loathe to allow that reasoning and precedent to take root in state criminal law?

[ucrdem]

45. Did you listen to it?

In any case you appear to be making a "she was just doing her job" defense. Fine but that's largely the point that Bazelon is making: she did her job like every other prosecutor including suppressing exculpatory evidence.

[lapucelle]

51. Nope. Did you read the actual news stories that the claims are based on?

I am not making a "she was just doing her job" defense.

I am making a "I don't trust people who distort facts to make their point, and I'm certainly not going to listen to them dissemble on the radio for 54 minutes" argument.

[ucrdem]

54. 20 minutes. I guess you didn't listen to it.

I kid! Okay you have your point of view. I find Harris disingenuous and unhelpful. I hope she gets out soon but she probably will linger. Oh well. Joe should be used to it by now.

[lapucelle]

60. The program is 54 minutes long. Did you read the news stories that she linked to? N/T

[ucrdem]

61. Where did you find those links?

I will read them, yes, but are those the embedded links in the NYT story or something else?

[lapucelle]

63. They were Bazelon's links in the NYT editorial. N/T

[ucrdem]

65. Okay the embedded links. And what are you disputing?

Is she lying about any of this or what am I supposed to be discovering?

[lapucelle]

87. Compare the news stories to her characterizations of the events. N/T

[oasis]

53. This is really disturbing news. nt

[bigtree]

56. lol

..."news"

[DemocracyMouse]

59. What has Harris said about this? Has she addressed it?

I liked Harris, but I can't comprehend how she has a moral spine if she tried to prevent DNA evidence from freeing an apparently innocent man.

Yikes, this is really disappointing.

[bigtree]

70. California's governor should allow more sensitive DNA testing, Kamala Harris said

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California's governor should allow more sensitive DNA testing that advocates say could exonerate a death row inmate, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris said Friday. "As a firm believer in DNA testing, I hope the governor and the state will allow for such testing in the case of Kevin Cooper," Harris, a former state attorney general and San Francisco prosecutor who opposes the death penalty, said in a statement.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-kamala-harris-calif-should-test-dna-of-inmate-kevin-cooper-condemned-amid-controversy/

[ucrdem]

71. This was AFTER she'd disallowed it while in office. That's Bazelon's point. nt

[bigtree]

73. "two previous DNA tests concluded Cooper was the killer"

...even Jerry Brown neglected to pursue the NEW DNA testing methods.

This was well before Nicholas Kristoff's interactive multimedia opinion feature that 'starkly laid out evidence that Cooper may have been framed for the crime'...

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff, to his credit, has written about the case extensively. In May of last year, he wrote an interactive multimedia opinion feature that starkly laid out evidence that Cooper may have been framed for the crime. When the column was published online, Kristoff wrote that he got a call from California Sen. Kamala Harris, who for years served as the state attorney general, and whom he said had previously “showed no interest in the case.”

“I feel awful about this,” Harris told Kristoff, referring to her refusal, during her entire time as the state’s top law enforcement officer, to allow advanced DNA testing of the evidence in Cooper’s case. Following the column, Harris put out a statement linking to the piece in support of further DNA testing:

"My career as a prosecutor was marked by fierce opposition to the death penalty while still upholding the law and a commitment to fixing a broken criminal justice system. I’ve long been an advocate for measures to improve and make our system more fair and just.

As a firm believer in DNA testing, I hope the governor and the state will allow for such testing in the case of Kevin Cooper"

https://splinternews.com/why-oppose-a-dna-test-that-could-free-an-innocent-man-1832816713

[ucrdem]

78. She admits in her own letter she refused to allow advanced DNA testing "her entire time"

as AG. And this is supposed to exonerate her for what exactly?

[bigtree]

81. I'm not blaming her

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2019, 09:07 AM - Edit history (1)

...have at it.

It was new science and nothing had yet been revealed about the possibility of Cooper's possible innocence. It's not like he was the only convicted inmate not afforded the new technology.

Btw, what's up with the new tests? 'Ongoing' since ordered Dec. of last year.

Thought I'd ask, 'cause you seem real concerned about this case.

[emmaverybo]

82. Kevin Cooper is not a good example to push for DNA testing. I will allow that if she was thoroughly

up on that case, she would sensibly oppose his nonsense. He was simply a thug with a violent history caught dead to rights. However, other cases more clearly show that she followed
political imperatives rather than the path of righteousness or common ethical concerns in many
other decisions she made as a DA and AG.

[treestar]

91. She will be prepared to

She is always prepared.

[EveHammond13]

79. even IF true I don't give a flying fuck. sorry not sorry NYT

[honest.abe]

84. i dont know the details of these cases but Im sure there were alot of pressures and complications..

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2019, 08:47 AM - Edit history (1)

she had to deal with. Its very unfair to cherry pick a case here and there that appear to be controversial. She must have had thousands of cases she had to deal with in her time as AG in California. Is not surprising there would be a few controversial ones.

What is clear that since she been in the Senate her record is one the most progressive/liberal of all Senators.. ranked higher than Sanders and Warren on some progressive ranking sites. Also, her statements as a candidate are clearly progressive and solid Democratic. Many candidates have baggage from the past. Warren used to be a Republican for example. Most seem to have gotten over that.

[Gothmog]

85. This will come up in the debate

[honest.abe]

86. And she will answer it with no problem.

[bigtree]

88. probably not by Biden

...who has even greater difficulty explaining his role in enacting regressive criminal justice regulations than a prosecutor tasked by law to follow them.

[treestar]

92. And she will be prepared

although she does have advance notice of it, so she should be.

[ucrdem]

96. Politifact California: Criminal justice reformer, or defender of the status quo? The record is mixed

This long article uses Bazelon as one of several scholarly sources, but doesn't question her facts. Instead it fact-checks Harris's own claims to have been a reforming prosecutor, and reaches the conclusion that while she introduced some commendable initiatives, she also avoided opportunities to make real progress. As for articles fact-checking Bazelon (author of the NYT piece in the OP), I haven't found any:

By Louis Jacobson, Chris Nichols on Tuesday, January 29th, 2019

We examined Harris’ record to see whether it supports the image she’s crafted as a prosecutor, one who stands up for progressive principles. Through interviews with law professors, former prosecutors, political analysts and the candidate’s campaign, we found a mixed record.

On the one hand, Harris achieved some notable reform-minded victories, including efforts to reduce recidivism and eliminate bias in law enforcement. She also burnished her progressive credentials in 2004 with a controversial decision as district attorney not to seek the death penalty for a man suspected of killing a police officer.

At other times, Harris’ positions disappointed criminal-justice advocates, and that’s becoming an issue in the Democratic presidential primary.

(skip to conclusion)

As her presidential campaign continues, so will the scrutiny. Looking at the question of whether Harris was truly a champion for criminal justice reform or a silent ally of the status quo, there’s no simple answer. The record is complex and, in places, includes contradictions. Our examination shows it’s a mixed record.

https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2019/jan/29/kamala-harris-criminal-justice-reformer-or-defende/