Why a Judge Report Card?
You have a right to know! Stop Crime Action has researched and created this preliminary Report Card about currently serving Superior Court judges – who they are, how they have ruled and what the trial lawyers who regularly appear in front of them and other court observers tell us about them.
The purpose of this report is two-fold: 1) to provide the public with a primer on San Francisco Superior Court criminal justice operations, and 2) to enhance public education about our judges.
This report has information on all 27 judges whose terms end in January 2027. Future reports will cover other San Francisco Superior Court judges prior to the expiration of their terms. Judges answer to the Constitution and the law and to the citizens of San Francisco just like the members of the other two local branches of government – the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, District Attorney and other elected officials. This Report Card will help you to exercise your right to hold them accountable to the law and our values as San Franciscans for justice and community safety.
METHODOLOGY
Our grades are based on observations from courtroom observers. These include results from a confidential survey of trial attorneys, and reports from our Court Watch program volunteers and other observers. We also conducted online research of judicial outcomes and information on specific judges. The San Francisco Public Defenders Office refused to provide a list of courtroom attorneys to allow them to be surveyed, despite an official California Public Records Act request, in contrast to its willingness to provide similar information two years ago. As difficult as it is to credit this, the office indicated that such a list of defense attorneys was unavailable.
Previous 2024 Judge Report Card
Our grades are based on observations from courtroom observers. These include results from a confidential survey of trial attorneys, and reports from our Court Watch program volunteers and other observers. We also conducted online research of judicial outcomes and information on specific judges. The San Francisco Public Defenders Office refused to provide a list of courtroom attorneys to allow them to be surveyed, despite an official California Public Records Act request, in contrast to its willingness to provide similar information two years ago. As difficult as it is to credit this, the office indicated that such a list of defense attorneys was unavailable.
The bedrock of the right to vote is the right to cast an informed vote. Our California Constitution requires that Superior Court judges shall be elected. In San Francisco, however, the average resident has minimal access to information about who our judges are or the decisions they make daily that affect our lives and community safety.
You have a right to know! Stop Crime Action has researched and created this Report Card about currently serving Superior Court judges – who they are, how they have ruled and what the trial lawyers who regularly appear in front of them and what other court observers tell us about them. This is a big task made more difficult by the Superior Court’s lack of transparency information. This report has information on all 26 judges whose terms end in January, 2027 but we plan to continue until we can provide information about all 52 San Francisco Superior Court judges. They answer to the citizens of San Francisco just like the members of the other two local branches of government – the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, District Attorney and other elected officials. This Report Card will help you to exercise your right to hold them accountable to the law and our values as San Franciscans for justice and community safety.
Should Our Judiciary be Transparent?
Do judges bear some of the responsibility for our crime problem? Should their actions be transparent? We think the answer to both questions is “YES.”
Currently there are 517 defendants with open bench warrants who failed to appear for narcotics cases after being released by the court, according to the DA’s Office. That means they were released by judges pending trial and then disappeared, for more than 30 months on average. Some drug dealer defendants did it several times. Who are the judges who released them, and why?
In California, the Governor typically appoints an experienced lawyer who has submitted a voluminous questionnaire to serve as a Superior Court judge.* The terms of approximately one-third of the judges expire every two years. We asked each of the judges (except recently appointed Judges Frankel and Rhoads) whose terms end in 2025 what criteria voters should use to decide whether they merit a new term. We also asked them for the non-confidential parts of the questionnaires they submitted to the governor when they sought appointment to their first terms. The judges who received our request got together and collectively refused to provide this basic information, stating that judicial ethics rules prohibited them from commenting on issues that may come before them. Of course, we were not asking for that type of information.
We also asked all the assistant district attorneys and deputy public defenders their views on the performance of these judges in court. After all, these are the lawyers who most frequently appear in criminal courts and presumably know them best. We heard back from these lawyers but sensed a level of concern about professional risks if they said bad things about incumbent judges. Judges complained that we were not sending surveys to an additional set of lawyers they appoint to handle criminal matters. When we agreed to do so, they would not provide us any names of such attorneys and sent us to the Bar Association of San Francisco who refused our request for the list.
Undeterred, we used our people power to directly observe courtroom proceedings and undertake extraordinary research to read court filings, orders, decisions, media reports and other material. Reviewing judicial decisions is particularly difficult in San Francisco because of the antiquated method of accessing criminal case files. In neighboring Alameda and San Mateo counties, it’s possible to access criminal files by case number, defendant’s name, or court date through their online portals. Under each case, it’s possible to see court filings, identify any judicial orders that are made and identify the judge making each decision.
In San Francisco, the Superior Court’s online data portal provides basic summaries of case resolutions by case number, but the names of the defendants and the judges handling the cases are not available online. To identify the defendants and judges, or to find out what happened in any case, one must physically go down to the Hall of Justice and complete a separate form by hand for every case you want to review. You may have to pay a fee to access cases, and you may have to wait a week or more for the clerks to retrieve a single case file. Research that would take one hour in San Mateo or Alameda could take weeks in San Francisco. That’s part of the reason our research is limited and does not address decisions on diversion, sentencing, plea bargains, rulings on motions to suppress, motions to revoke probation, etc.
We were able to overcome many but not all obstacles to your right to know about the conduct of the San Francisco Superior Court. We now present our Report Card on some of the judges about whom there was adequate information to provide a Pass/Fail grade. We will continue to evaluate judges and also urge systemic reforms. We call upon the Superior Court and Bar Association of San Francisco to use their greater resources to increase transparency and systematically provide data on decisions by all judges for public review. In addition, we are formulating recommendations for institutional reforms that will increase transparency on judicial proceedings and access to judicial records. You have a right to know.
* After the Governor’s appointment, and every six years following, that judge’s term ends and he or she is subject to election by the voters and other experienced lawyers can run for that judicial seat. Rather than lifetime appointments, the authority to keep that judge in office or elect someone else who runs is up to the voters.
