Kamala Harris accused of defying Supreme Court precedent
Presidential candidate and California Sen. Kamala Harris (D) has repeatedly pointed to her record as a prosecutor during this election.
What she has not been discussing, though, is the tragic reality that almost 1,000 of Harris’ cases were overturned because she ignored a 1963 Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland, The Washington Examiner reports.
Brady v. Maryland
The 1963 case decision is meant to create fairness in court decisions.
The focal point of the ruling is that prosecuting attorneys cannot hide potential exculpatory evidence from the defense.
Included in this decision is information about “expert” witnesses, or any witnesses for that matter, used against the defense that could potentially harm their credibility. It is claimed that Harris repeatedly disregarded the standard set by this case.
One example of how Harris violated the Supreme Court decision was her use of Deborah Madden as an expert witness.
Madden was a crime lab technician for the San Francisco Police Department who was regularly called by Harris’ office to testify during trials.
What most defense attorneys may not have known at the time was that Madden had previously been charged in a domestic violence case, eventually being found guilty of misdemeanor charges.
Additionally, Madden had been accused of stealing drugs from the very lab where she worked. The local police department investigated Madden, even adding a note to her file that stated “Brady implications.”
When the Madden issues went public, people started to dig into other cases tried while Harris was the DA, and they found a truckload of possible violations. Another example was reliance on testimony from a toxicologist who had been accused of fraud in 2007, something Harris failed to acknowledge until 2010.
Harris, of course, blames the problem on an oversight issue, which is very typical of Democrats these days — just blame someone else and refuse to take responsibility.
Harris’ record as a prosecutor is in shambles — but this could be a far larger problem than just creating election woes, as legal experts believe this could even be grounds for disbarment. Only time will tell.