The brother-in-law of fallen San Francisco police officer Isaac Espinoza says he’s voting for Donald Trump and that his own family’s tragedy makes it personal.
Speaking exclusively to DailyMail.com, Edgar Mendez said District Attorney Kamala Harris is the reason Espinoza’s killer was not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Despite pressure from several California Democrats to implement the death penalty, Harris stuck to a campaign promise and secured a sentence of life in prison without parole for 22-year-old gang member David Hill, who shot and killed the 29-year-old man with an AK-47 during a routine traffic stop.
Harris, who had been in office for just three months, appeared before cameras just three days after the murder to announce her decision at a press conference, without seeking input from the victim’s family or even giving them advance notice.
“People need to know what it was like in 2004 when my brother-in-law passed away,” Mendez, 45, told DailyMail.com.
Edgar Mendez, 45, said District Attorney Kamala Harris is the reason Espinoza’s killer was not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Isaac Espinoza was a 29-year-old San Francisco police officer when he was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop in 2004.
“He didn’t even call us before deciding whether he was going to seek the death penalty,” he said.
“She just announced it. She seemed more focused on fulfilling a campaign promise than showing compassion, reaching out to the family and actually being on the side of justice.”
In 2019, Espinoza’s widow, Renata Espinoza, expressed anger toward Harris during her last failed campaign for the presidency.
“I don’t understand why he went on camera to say that without talking to the family,” she said. American television network “It’s like you can’t even wait until he’s buried, right?”
“I felt like something had been taken from us,” he added.
“She had just taken justice away from us, from Isaac. She was only thinking about herself. I couldn’t understand why. I couldn’t believe that she had gone ahead and had already made the decision not to seek the death penalty for my husband.”
Earlier this week, Republican Steve Cooley, whom Harris defeated in the 2010 election for California Attorney General, cited the Espinoza case as a major reason for not voting for Harris in this year’s presidential election.
“I believe she is completely unqualified and her election could be the worst thing that could happen to our nation in my lifetime,” Cooley, 77, told DailyMail.com.
In 2024, the Trump campaign, which is trying to make law and order a central theme of the race, is portraying Harris as a failed prosecutor. Meanwhile, conservative commentators have cited the Espinoza case as a study in Harris’s weakness on crime.
The officer’s widow, who still lives outside San Francisco, has been bombarded recently with calls and visits from the media but has so far declined interview requests.
Harris’ handling of the 2004 affair remains relevant in this campaign because it shows the callousness of her leadership, as well as her tendency to change attitude when the political winds shift, Méndez says.
Hill, then a 22-year-old gang member, was sentenced to life in prison for killing Espinoza.
She agreed to let her brother speak to DailyMail.com.
“I was at the memorial,” said Mendez, who is a conservative. “Even Sen. Diane Feinstein said at the service that if there was ever a circumstance that justified the death penalty, this was it. The police officers stood up and applauded.”
“Even people in his own party agreed that it was the wrong decision,” Mendez added. “Harris upset a lot of people.
“Obviously, it was frustrating for us, for the police department and also for Isaac’s family. But it was also important to us as a family that she didn’t even bother to call us.”
In 2014, Harris softened her hardline stance when the death penalty was declared unconstitutional in California. As attorney general, she appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which overturned the lower court’s ruling.
Méndez said Harris’ handling of the 2004 case remains relevant in this campaign because it simply shows the callousness of the vice president’s leadership, as well as her tendency to change positions when the political winds shift.
“We see it in the news today, how he suddenly changed his stance on everything from gun control to the border to fracking,” Mendez said.
In 2019, Renata Espinoza, the widow of the slain officer, said she did not understand why Harris did not seek the death penalty for her husband.
“We are not supporting Harris in this election, we are proud to support President Trump,” Mendez told DailyMail.com
“She’s a typical politician, from my point of view,” he added. “She will do or say anything to become president.”
“However, in 2004, when Isaac passed away, it was certainly not the time to take a political stance,” he continued. “It was the time to take the side of justice. And she failed that test.”
And now, these days, all we’ve been hearing from the Democratic side is how Trump is a “threat to democracy.”
“Democracy was ignored in 2004 when Kamala Harris chose not to move forward with what the state decided were special circumstances with the death of a police officer,” Mendez said.
“We are not endorsing Harris in this election,” he said. “We are proudly endorsing President Trump. We believe he is the best choice for us and for local police departments and across the country.”
(tags to translate)dailymail