As San Francisco DA Kamala Harris Chose To Not Seek The Death Penalty Against A Cop Killer
California Citizens Long Supported the Death Penalty But Harris Placed Her Personal Views Ahead Of Californians -- and Senator Diane Feinstein
San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinoza — End of Watch April 10, 2004.
Officer Espinoza was married and had a three year old daughter.
Officer Espinoza was 29.
Kamala Harris was elected to the office of District Attorney for San Francisco in the December 2003 run-off between her and her boss, then DA Terrance Hallinan. In the non-partisan November 2003 election for the office, Hallinan had finished first in a 3-candidate field with 36%; Harris second with 34%; and Bill Fazio third with 30%.
Bill Fazio was a career prosecutor in the DA’s Office, and one of its most successful homicide prosecutors. He had run against Hallinan in 1999, and a poll conducted by the union representing San Francisco Police Officers showed Fazio with 98% support over Hallinan.
Harris was an almost complete unknown. She had been a prosecutor in the SF DA’s office for only two years before quitting to join the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office. But Willie Brown was the Mayor of San Francisco, and he brought his political machine to the race to support her.
As for Hallinan, it would be difficult to imagine a guy who could have only 2% support among SFPD officers in 1999, and then make matters worse for himself over the next four years. On July 19, 2003, four months before the election, three off-duy SF Police Officers were involved in a brawl with two men outside a bar in San Francisco over possession of some take-out fajitas, hence the name given to the affair — “Fajitagate.” One of the three officers was Alex Fagan Jr., whose father, Alex Fagan Sr., had recently been promoted to Assistant Police Chief of the SFPD. In the weeks that followed, Hallinan would gleefully preside over the issuance of grand jury indictments of the entire command structure of the SFPD for obstructing the investigation into the brawl involving Off. Fagan Jr. That indictment included San Francisco’s first ever African-American Police Chief, the entirely non-controversial Earl Sanders. Sanders had led a legal effort many years earlier to force the hiring of a greater number of minorities by the San Francisco Police Department. Sanders was something of a civil rights “hero” in San Francisco because of his history in that regard.
Three months after the indictments, Kamala Harris — who no one ever heard off — beat Hallinan in the run-off election 56.5% to 43.5%. With the nearly complete support of the San Francisco law enforcement establishment — by virtue of not being Hallinan — Harris assumed office in January 2004.
Four months later SFPD Office Isaac Espinoza was gunned-down by San Fransisco gang member David Hill using an AK-47. Espinoza’s partner, Officer Barry Parker, was wounded in the attack.
Officer Espinoza and his partner were patrolling the Bayview District in an unmarked car and wearing civilian clothes. Bayview had long been an area of San Francisco with a heavy African-American population, lower socio-economic development, and a constant gang problem.
Based on the facts as related at trial, there is simply no question that Hill committed premeditated murder and the death penalty for killing a police officer in the line-of-duty could have been prosecuted. While patrolling at a low speed — with Parker driving — they spotted Hill walking down the street with another individual. When they first noticed the Officer’s vehicle, Hill and the second individual stopped and watched the Officers’ car.
As the car got closer, Hill — who was wearing a 3/4 length pea coat — turned to walk down an intersecting street while looking back over his shoulder at the officers. The officers turned to follow him down the same street “at a crawl” so as to not pass Hill as he walked. The officers then drew even with Hill, with their vehicle approximately 15 feet from where Hill was walking on the sidewalk. Officer Parker noted to Off. Espinoza that Hill was swinging his left arm normally as he walked but his right arm was still and suggested that Hill might be trying to keep something hidden under his coat. Officer Espinoza illuminated Hill with his flashlight so he could see his face better.
Officer Parker stopped the car and Off. Espinoza exited and moved to the sidewalk a short distance behind Hill who kept walking. Officer Espinoza was wearing his star-shaped Police Badge on a chain around his next outside this shirt and in plain view. Officer Parker stepped out of the car when he stopped so Off. Espinoza could exit. He stood between the door and the driver’s seat before re-entering to keep following Hill as he continued to walk with Off. Espinoza following him.
Officer Espinoza directed Hill to stop, saying “Hey, let me talk to you.” Hill responded that he did not have an ID and continued to walk about 10-12 feet ahead of Off. Espinoza, looking over his shoulder at Off. Espinoza. Officer Espinoza never drew his weapon, but twice said to Hill “Stop, Police.”
Hill then turned to face Off. Espinoza. From inside the car Off. Parker could see a magazine from long gun under Hill’s coat as Hill brought it up to aim at Off. Espinoza. Hill fired two shots and Off. Espinoza went down on the sidewalk.
Officer Parker exited the car and kneeled between the driver’s door and seat for cover when Hill began to shoot at him, taking out the windshield. Officer Parker moved back to the trunk area as Hill went around the front side of the vehicle. Officer Parker then ran for better cover away from the vehicle. At that point Hill fled. Officer Parker was unable to get off a single shot in the incident.
Twelve shell casings from an AK-47 weapon were recovered from the scene. Based on the location of the shell casings and the trajectory of some of the rounds, Hill fired some of the shots from the sidewalk and some from the street as he moved to get a better position to fire on Off. Parker.
When Off. Parker went to aid Off. Espinoza he was bleeding profusely from his leg and abdomen. Officer Espinoza was transported to a nearby hospital but died from loss of blood. Officer Espinoza’s firearm never left his holster.
It had been 10 years since a SFPD Officer had been shot and killed in the line of duty. In the Nov. 2003 election, the Police Union first endorsed Bill Fazio, the long-time Homicide prosecutor who had been fired by DA Hallinan. Officer Espinoza was the union representative for his station. In 1973, voters in California passed an initiative that made the killing of an on-duty police officer a “special circumstance” under California law that would justify the death penalty. Many California district attorneys’ offices had procedures for determining whether to seek the death penalty. Some had a committee of experienced prosecutors who evaluated arguments for and against in each case. Some allowed the defense attorney for the defendant to present mitigating evidence that would warrant not seeking the death penalty. Most offices included some form of consultation the victim’s family.
Officer Espinoza was killed on a Saturday night. The next day was Easter Sunday, and that evening Hill was arrested for the murder. On Tuesday Harris held a news conference about the case and announced that she would not seek the death penalty. There was no reason why Harris had to make the decision so quickly or to announce the decision at a press conference only 48 hours after the arrest was made.
Harris had campaigned on opposing the death penalty as had pretty much every other person running for office in ultra-liberal — even by California standards — San Francisco. To the President of the Police Union, Gary Delagnes, Harris’s comment at the press conference — before Off. Espinoza had even been buried — smacked as a situation where she saw a political opportunity to reinforce her stance as an opponent of the death penalty.
But by far the loudest criticism of Harris came from what was then the most powerful voice in San Francisco politics — U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein. She spoke at Off. Espinoza’s funeral which was attended by nearly every high-ranking elected official in California, including newly elected SF Mayor Gavin Newsom and then California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. Without naming Harris, Feinstein said the following:
“This is not only the definition of tragedy, it’s the special circumstance called for by the death penalty law.”
Feinstein’s words were met with a standing ovation by hundreds of officers who turned to face Harris sitting the first pew of the church. Afterwards in an interview Feinstein said she would not have endorsed Harris in the DA’s race had she known that Harris opposed the death penalty.
As told by those who were connected to the case — including Off. Espinoza’s widow, Renata Espinoza — Harris never contacted any of the family or police union officials to discuss the death penalty or even let them know what her decision was before the press conference. After Harris announced her decision, and despite several efforts by family members — including a letter written to Harris personally by Renata Espinoza — Harris never gave the family the courtesy of even giving them a reply.
The DA’s Victim Services Office attempted to provide support to the family, but the SFPD coalesced around them and shut the DA’s Office out. Eventually, the family convinced the Assistant DA handling the case to arrange a meeting with Harris. Renata Espinoza and her sister described that meeting as unsatisfying, with Harris merely repeating the considerations she took into account in making her decision but never once mentioning the effect on Off. Espinoza’s family or how her decision had impacted them in the days following his murder. Both said the meeting lacked any kind of personal connection — no acknowledgement by Harris of their loss or the loss to the community.
As for Harris, she later published an opinion article in the San Francisco Chronicle explaining her decision. She pointed out that Hill was only 21 at the time of the murder, noted historical racial disparities in seeking the death penalty in California, that juries in San Francisco often do not vote to impose the death penalty even when it is an option, and the long and costly process of dealing with appeals of death penalty sentences in both state and federal courts in California.
But the issue did not disappear. Harris was a neophyte politician and DA and the criticism of her decision — centered around the way she had reached it — continued on for weeks. The relationship between the DA’s Office and the SFPD would never recover while she was in office. Senator Barbara Boxer — not wanting to get sideways with Seantor Feinstein — suggested that the U.S. Attorney look into taking the case. Attorney General Lockyer — who is the boss under California law of all the elected District Attorneys — advised her that his office might need to step in and take away the case unless she provided a justification for not seeking the death penalty that was based on a factual investigation as opposed to her philosophical opposition. Lockyer later backed off the threat, Hill was prosecuted by Harris’ office, and was convicted of second degree murder. The judge sentenced him to two terms of life in prison, one without the possibility of parole.
Many have applauded her stance through the years as being a testament to her courage — to stand by her principles when tested by the most extreme circumstance she could face.
While that may be true, it also is reflective of that principle — and a consistent through-line to her “Defund the Police” stance and as a supporter of bail funds to secure the release of rioters charged with destroying property and burning down cities in the summer of 2020.
And it exposes the lie being advanced now that her background is as a “tough on crime” prosecutor who will step in and advance policies to secure the border and make our streets safer.
Kamala Harris is a cipher as a nominee for President. She has been a Vice-President of no consequence, after having spent less than a full term in office as a Senator of no consequence. But she did leave some clues behind in California as to what she believes in, and those beliefs are not consistent with the fictional tale of her time in office that is being offered by her campaign and the Democrat Party.
Next up — when Kamala Harris sought restore the death penalty under California law following a decision by a federal court judge, appointed by a Republican, declaring it to be unconstitutional based on the manner in which it was employed in California.
Yeah — it’s not easy to explain.
Thx again. Concise, easy to read & understand. Besides your j6 help, u speak with a lot of professional knowledge & authority without fear of reprisal.
Course, you can b an asshole sometimes, but can't we all?
Harris is a POS, simple as that.