How We Researched San Francisco Judges
Stop Crime SF spent nine months researching the performance of 14 San Francisco judges whose terms end in January 2025. We do this to make our judicial system more transparent and accountable. And we hope to prod the Superior Court into greater transparency so the public can understand its judiciary, and achieve better “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
Research on these judges included:
A survey of trial attorneys who are close observers of San Francisco judges;
Research on appeals of court rulings;
Research on case history data on selected judicial rulings;
In-depth analysis of a limited sample of potentially problematic rulings;
An assessment of online and media coverage of the judges;
Additional intelligence gathering.
Obtaining data on rulings by individual judges was a massive undertaking because that information is not accessible from the San Francisco Superior Court or the District Attorney’s Office. After we submitted a Public Records Act request in August 2023, over a period of three months we were able to obtain raw data from the DA on a narrow range of narcotics sales cases. Our volunteers then made numerous trips to the Hall of Justice at 850 Bryant Street over two months, where we requested more than 200 paper files of Superior Court cases from court clerks and photographed thousands of pages, to later review and process. And then we ordered, paid for and waited weeks for transcripts of individual cases in some instances. Links to data and documents obtained in the public records act request will be shown here soon. Click here to see one example of the data we received. Note that there are two sheets in the example (go to the bottom to toggle between the two).
Click here to see some of the emails between Stop Crime SF and the District Attorney’s office.
This is a start. Our work is necessarily incomplete. We hope to continue researching the performance of the approximately 40 other San Francisco judges in the coming years.
STOP CRIME SF - Interim Judicial Report:
For democracy’s sake, it’s time to shed light on the judiciary; judges can help
Stop Crime SF is a non-profit organization composed of 5000 members across San Francisco. Earlier this year, we embarked on an effort to educate fellow San Franciscans about the important work of the local Superior Court and its impact on community safety and to evaluate specific judges who may appear on the March, 2024 ballot.
What we found is both enlightening and disturbing, and we will share a bit of it here. The path to informing San Franciscans is full of obstacles. It is not surprising that few San Franciscans know the names or records of the judges who make decisions about the fate of defendants and the safety of crime victims on a daily basis. Few San Franciscans realize that their ability to vote on whether a judge should remain on the bench for an additional six year term is entirely dependent upon whether another lawyer decides to run against that judge. With less than a week before the filing deadline, only one judge has an opponent. If things stay the same, the other thirteen will automatically get another six-year term without a vote of the people. As we continue on this path to seek information, we provide this interim report on what we have learned and our next steps.
Stop Crime SF has solicited and examined a diverse set of information points to examine as best we can the totality of a judge's record on the bench. Our goal continues to be to grade the San Francisco Superior Court judges who have presided over matters in our criminal courts and whose terms end in 2025 by utilizing
● Records of decisions
● Reports from Stop Crime SF courtroom observers
● Questionnaires sent to the prosecutors and defense attorneys who appear before the judges regularly
● Questionnaires sent to the judges themselves CLICK HERE TO SEE THE QUESTIONS
● Media reports of cases
● Courtroom transcripts
● On-line information about judges' decisions and how they treat the litigants and lawyers who come before them and courtroom personnel
● Other relevant information gleaned from interviews of legal experts and community leaders
The response from the judges was telling. CLICK HERE FOR THE RESPONSE We wrote to them individually out of respect for their independence, unique perspectives and varying records. On September 13, they responded collectively with a blanket refusal to provide information because they “are constrained by the standards of judicial ethics and cannot discuss our personal opinions about issues which may come before us.” They cited their efforts to educate the public about the role of the courts by conducting town hall meetings, attending community events and having a San Francisco Superior Court booth at street fairs.
The judges’ two-paragraph response completely disregarded our central question – On what basis should citizens vote to grant incumbent judges another six-year term on the bench? This is not a question about their personal opinions on crime or the cases before them but a threshold question about the voters’ democratic role and responsibility in an upcoming judicial election.
We also asked for any pertinent information from their original applications for judicial appointment to the governor – that is, what they said before they were judges about why they should be judges. Again, nothing.
In addition, we asked for names or court numbers of cases in which their rulings were appealed and the outcome of those appeals. While this information is publicly available, it is often difficult to access. Obtaining this public information from the judges would provide a greater certainty we would have correct and complete information. Again, nothing.
In their collective response, the judges contended that complying with “restrictions on our ability to discuss issues” contributes to public confidence in the courts. But rebuffing citizens’ attempts to shed light on the judiciary reduces public confidence in it and makes it more difficult for citizens to fulfill two responsibilities of citizenship – jury service and voting on judges.
Each year, the presiding judge of the Superior Court assigns the 52 judges to various courtrooms and departments, typically divided by civil court and criminal court. Stop Crime SF sent surveys about the judicial performance of the judges whose terms are ending to two sets of lawyers who regularly appear in front of the criminal court judges – Assistant District Attorneys and Deputy Public Defenders. These lawyers represent both sides of criminal matters and presumably are in the best position to evaluate the judges based on their regular and sustained interactions as opposed to other lawyers who might have just one case in front of one judge and sporadic knowledge of the others.
Judges informally urged us to include in our survey outreach a third set of lawyers – those regularly appointed by the court to serve as defense counsel when the Public Defender may have a conflict, where there are multiple defendants or for other reasons. Both the judges and the Bar Association who has the court contract to administer the program rebuffed our requests for the list of court-appointed defense attorneys we continue to be willing to survey.
Feedback from the attorneys we surveyed was mixed and, in this preliminary report, not yet sufficient enough to provide a full assessment of the judges. San Franciscans should be pleased by the favorable comments rendered by these attorneys about some judges, such as ““She has a good reputation. When she heard personal attacks and false statements lodged against an attorney, she investigated and got to the bottom of it ....” and “kind, incredibly smart and knowledgeable, generous with his time, provides great deference to parties.” Nonetheless, we were surprised and disheartened by other attorney responses as well as Stop Crime SF courtroom observers who raised serious concerns about some judges’ knowledge of criminal law, courtroom temperament and attitude toward prosecutors.
As citizens, we are greatly served by the courage of lawyers to come forward to provide their candid and professional insights as to what they observe and experience in our courts daily. Even with our assurances of confidentiality, many are reluctant to comment. Stop Crime SF is grateful for those who have done so and again urge those attorneys with knowledge of the courts to share it with the citizens so we can cast informed and responsible votes on the judges.
Education about the criminal justice system in San Francisco is an ongoing process. While San Franciscans see and hear, and are too often the victims of, violent and property crime, the courtroom outcomes are often frustrating without a public understanding of the criminal justice system. Blame is placed upon police, upon judges, upon prosecutors, upon defense attorneys, upon jurors, and upon lawmakers. And these actors often blame each other for outcomes that make us less just and less safe. For example, San Franciscans recalled the prior District Attorney in 2022 over many of these issues. The current District Attorney cites statistics about the failure of judges to grant Motions to Detain defendants who have been arrested for drug sales. Judges state that they are obligated to follow California Supreme Court and other rulings which require “clear and convincing” evidence that a defendant is a flight risk or threat to public safety – evidence, judges contend, that prosecutors are not always able to provide.
Our state legislators and governor have also mandated programs and policies that favor diversion of certain defendants away from the traditional criminal justice system if they provide care or support to family members, have a mental disorder that was a significant factor in the crime, or have drug rehabilitation needs. We need to know whether diversion leads to successful rehabilitation of the defendant and satisfactory closure for victims as well as how often the defendants fail to follow up on their agreed upon diversion and do not return to court except on a subsequent arrest with additional victims.
The system, as it now stands, provides little help or information to crime victims who suddenly learn that their cases have been diverted, serious felony charges against the perpetrator have been dismissed, and all records of the proceeding have been sealed. Interested citizens should not have to expend the resources Stop Crime SF has had to, including hiring an attorney, in order to obtain the information we sought about court outcomes and decisions.
Frustration about the outcomes of judicial proceedings is worsened when we as citizens are unable to pierce the veil of secrecy around judicial decision-making. Stop Crime SF calls upon all our local judges to help educate the public about their actions and roles. This will help the voters carry out our responsibilities to determine and vote on whether judges should be returned to the bench or a replacement named on Election Day. As of this date, only one incumbent judge has an opponent. Under California law, this means the other 13 judges whose terms end next year will be given a six-year term without a vote of the voters. It is time for all of us to step up and participate.
Informing Voters About Our Judges Is Essential for Our Democracy:
September 7th, 2023
“Over the course of our careers and lifetimes, we are called upon to make decisions that affect our own lives and futures and those of loved ones and our communities. Having access to vital information and committing to ground one’s decisions in facts, law and good judgment are essential. As a member of the group Stop Crime SF, I believe San Francisco voters are entitled to have critical and relevant information about our local judges who may appear on our ballot at the March 2024 election.
That's why I'm helping Stop Crime SF with its program to educate voters about the decisions of San Francisco Superior Court judges. StopCrime SF is a grassroots group of San Francisco neighbors from all walks of life who share a fervent concern about the criminal justice system and the wellbeing of all San Franciscans. Community safety and protection are fundamental responsibilities of both the government and all members of our society.
I was surprised to see my former colleague, Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, write an OpEd in the Chronicle attacking the Stop Crime SF program. While I have great respect for Dean Chemerinsky, he is profoundly wrong in his outsized criticism of our work to help voters understand the judiciary.
Through judicial elections, California law entrusts its citizens with the power to retain or reject sitting judges. Dean Chemerinsky's approach would deprive voters of important factual information about the decisions of those judges and how they affect our daily lives. We need more light, not less, on the public decisions of judges.
StopCrime SF’s plan to survey defense lawyers and prosecutors who appear before the judges regularly as well as the judges themselves will produce unique, informed and balanced insights into the activities taking place in our local judicial system. It comes at a time when citizens seek more answers about what is going on in our courts and in the aftermath of the historic recall of former District Attorney Chesa Boudin (recently hired by Dean Chemerinsky at his law school.)
Most significantly, StopCrime SF is specifically asking the judges themselves how voters should evaluate judicial records and what information is relevant to the voters’ decision on whether to retain judges. StopCrime SF is also asking for portions of the questionnaires judges submitted to the governor when they sought appointment to the bench. Certainly if the information is important and legitimate for the governor to base his appointment decision, it is equally valid for voters to have that information when they decide whether to retain or reject the judge.
Without ever checking with us, Dean Chemerinsky asserts that StopCrime SF wants judges to rule in favor of police when there are claims of excessive force or violations of suspects’ constitutional rights. Had he even viewed our website, he would have read our insistence on “accountability for law enforcement. Police who abuse their power and cause great harm should face consequences.” Our vision for San Francisco is a city where all residents feel safe; where people take responsibility for the crimes they commit; where rehabilitation programs correct harmful behavior and where jails are reserved for the most dangerous and repeat offenders.
Dean Chemerinsky is free to disagree with our principles but he is not free to misstate them or condemn our efforts to let the public know what is going on daily in our courtrooms. For too long, judges and the judicial process have been cloaked in secrecy. Judicial proceedings are frequently mind-boggling to all but lawyers and judges. It is no wonder average citizens shudder when they receive a jury duty notice and crime victims and witnesses too often leave courtrooms with little understanding of what has occurred.
Dean Chemerinsky acknowledges that voters have a say in judicial elections. StopCrime SF members, with the input of courtroom participants themselves, will publicize factual information about judges and judicial proceedings in order to equip and empower voters to make informed decisions. In 2020, prior to the last local judicial elections, over 300 attended StopCrime SF’s election forum, a clear reflection of the need and hunger for information on our judges. Notwithstanding Dean Chemerinsky’s concern, voters desire and can handle the truth!
As for his concern about “pressuring” judges, millions of Americans have marched for or against court decisions on women’s reproductive freedoms, freedom to marry and other matters of societal importance. That’s not pressuring either. It’s our democratic right to inform and persuade one another.
Dean Chemerinsky admits that “deterrence of crime is most linked to the certainty of prosecution and conviction, which turns on police, prosecutors and courts.” In 2022, San Franciscans spoke loudly and recalled the former District Attorney. On March 5, 2024, voters can make our voices heard in contested judicial races. Through StopCrimeSF’s leadership, voters will be armed with fact-based analysis to cast informed votes and elect judges who will promote justice, public safety and our values as a city.”
StopCrime SF member John Trasviña is the immediate past Dean of the University of San Francisco School of Law and has served in three Democratic presidential administrations.
Judge Report Card 2023/2024
Stop Crime SF is sponsoring a project to enhance voter education for the upcoming San Francisco primary election on March 5th, 2024. Fourteen incumbent Superior Court judges will be up for reelection for a new 6-year term, but voters typically receive little or no useful information about these candidates beyond their education and prior experience. Our group will prepare written evaluations of these judges based on their criminal justice records. Our goals are to explain the operations of the Superior Court and help voters make informed choices by advancing transparency and accountability. Here is a list of the judges up for re-election. NOTE: IF A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE RUNS UNOPPOSED FOR RE-ELECTION, HIS OR HER NAME DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE BALLOT AND HE OR SHE IS AUTOMATICALLY RE-ELECTED FOLLOWING THE GENERAL ELECTION:
Judges Who will appear on the ballot because they have been challenged:
1. Michael Begert
2. Patrick S. Thompson
Judges Who will be Automatically Re-elected and will NOT appear on the ballot:
1. Theresa M. Caffese
2. Roger Chan
3. Andrew Y.S. Cheng
4. Samuel K. Feng
5. Simon J. Frankel
6. Christopher C. Hite
7. Curtis E.A. Karnow
8. Kathleen Kelly
9. Stephen M. Murphy
10. Michael Rhoads
11. Jeffrey S. Ross
12. Monica F. Wiley
San Francisco Judge Report Card Press Release August, 2023
San Francisco Crime Group to Issue SF Judge Report Card.
Superior Court Incumbents to Face a Better-Informed Electorate in Next Election San Francisco -
The grassroots group Stop Crime SF is issuing a first-of-its-kind “Judge Report Card” this fall. The purpose of this project is two-fold:
1) To provide voters with a primer on Superior Court criminal justice operations, and
2) To enhance voter education for the upcoming San Francisco judicial elections March 5th, 2024.
Even though judges are a critical link in the public safety chain, members of the voting public can obtain almost no useful information about them beyond their education and previous jobs. Virtually nothing is known about their performance or record while on the bench, the group said.
“We recognize the importance of an independent judiciary making fair decisions based on the law,” says Frank Noto, president of the anti-crime group. “Still, the voting public deserves a fact-based evaluation of the performance of its elected judges.”
At a time when drug overdose deaths are at an all-time high, many chronic drug dealers and other repeat violent felons are free on our streets because of overly lenient court rulings.
Recent remarks by San Francisco District Attorney Brook Jenkins highlight the problems: “Repeat and chronic offenders are selling the most deadly substance we’ve seen in this city. That tells you something about what has been going on in the courtrooms of this city. The judges are not taking this seriously. The judges are ignoring it.”
In March, 14 incumbent Superior Court judges will be up for re-election to a new six-year term. Stop Crime SF will prepare written evaluations of incumbent judges up for election who rule on criminal matters.
The group’s reporting will be based on information gained from sources such as a survey of criminal justice attorneys, District Attorney’s office and Superior Court databases, and outreach to judges and judge candidates. Stop Crime will also integrate information from its Court Watch program in the reports.
San Franciscans are encouraged to support the effort to bring transparency and accountability to a judicial branch that seems to offer very little of either. Join Stop Crime SF here to help this effort.
Media representatives are encouraged to sign up to receive a copy of the Judge Report Card by sending an email to hatun@stopcrimesf.com.
