JUDGE REPORT CARDS
Judge Patrick Thompson FAIL
Judge Thompson has by far the lowest survey rating (1.6) of all judges evaluated by trial attorneys.* Judge Thompson released felony drug dealer defendants on their own recognizance in 17 different cases during the period studied. Ten of the defendants Judge Thompson released had been arrested for committing new felonies when they were previously given pretrial release on their prior active felony cases. Of the 14 judges whose terms are expiring in January 2025, Judges Thompson and Rhoads are similarly likely to release defendants who are arrested for new felonies after they had been given pretrial release on their prior cases. No other judge we evaluated appears to have a comparable rate, though data is limited for others.
In one particular case, Thompson released a 14-time offender suspect who was subsequently arrested with nearly 2.2 pounds of fentanyl and other drugs, enough to kill tens of thousands. It finally took a Federal judge to detain him until trial. Another San Francisco Superior Court judge also found that Thomson had ”erred” in dismissing an auto theft case and overturned his decision. * Ratings are on a scale of 1 to 7, with the 7 highest score. Click Here for Patrick Thompson
Judge Michael Begert FAIL
Judge Begert released a convicted sex offender 4 separate times despite knowing that the defendant was also charged with robbery, grand theft, assault and battery, residential burglary and other crimes while released. This defendant was either released into treatment programs or on his own recognizance even though he continued to be arrested and charged with other crimes after release -- 3 of which were residential burglaries. While another judge set $25,000 bail after a burglary, Judge Begert released the offender a month later. After a felony residential burglary arrest in December 2022, in February 2023 Judge Begert again released him and denied the District Attorney’s request to place the offender on an ankle monitor. Boddy continued to miss court appearances and committed his third residential burglary in May 2023.
In another case, video showed defendant Sebastian Mendez violently attacking a police officer with a weapon during an arrest for auto burglary. Another judge allowed Mendez to be diverted into the Harbor Lights treatment program but ordered that he not be allowed to leave except for court appearances. Mendez skipped out of the diversion program and a warrant for his arrest was issued on September 25th, 2023. The next day, Mendez was arrested for breaking into a car again. In November 2023, the case was passed on to Judge Begert. Judge Begert sent the case back into mental health diversion, despite Mendez having just failed diversion, having violated another judge’s order not to leave the program, and his arrest for another auto burglary. The referral to diversion means that Mendez is once again out of custody.
Judge Begert has the second lowest overall survey rating of all the judges evaluated by trial attorneys who closely observe the courts. A trial attorney surveyed reports Begert “repeatedly allows re-offenders back into Drug Court.“ Click Here for Michael Begert
Judge Monica Wiley PASS
Of all the 14 judges evaluated, Judge Wiley earned the highest average survey rating (6.8) from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts. Fully half (50%) of trial attorneys familiar with Judge Wiley named her as one of the top three judges they would want to appear before for an important trial. Click Here for Monica Wiley
Judge Christoper Hite PASS
Judge Hite earned a moderately high average survey rating of 5.5 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts. His highest rating was for professionalism and judicial temperament. When asked which judge they would want to appear before for an important trial for a serious crime, numerous trial attorneys named Judge Hite in their top three, including two respondents who listed him as their top choice. He has been criticized in news media reports for dismissing thousands of warrants on quality of life citations and for his sentencing of a repeat offender car burglar. Click Here for Christopher Hite
Judge Michael Rhoads QUALIFIED PASS
Judge Rhoads joined the court less than a year ago, so his grade may change as he gains more experience. He rates well in some portions of our evaluation and poorly in others. He released defendants prior to trial (or modified their release conditions without placing them in custody or home detention) in 14 felony drug-dealing cases, including 10 cases where the new felony was committed while the defendant was on pretrial release from an earlier case.
On the other hand, he earned a relatively high average survey rating of 6.0 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts, though this rating (and comments) are based on only a modest number of survey responses, perhaps in part because he joined the bench just this year. A trial attorney comments on Rhoads: “Very good, patient, good demeanor, does his research, thorough.” Click Here for Michael Rhoads
There was insufficient information to fully evaluate Judges Theresa M. Caffese, Roger Chan, Andrew Y.S. Cheng, Samuel S. Frankel, Curtis E.A. Karnow, Kathleen Kelly, Stephen M. Murphy, Samuel Feng and Jeffrey S. Ross, due to considerations such as short periods in office, assignments in civil or juvenile courts, insufficient available data on criminal justice proceedings during the period study, and other factors. This lack of information does not reflect on their performance. Judge Cynthia Lee, who was highly rated by trial attorneys, retired well before completion of our evaluation. For more information on these judges:
Click Here for Andrew Y.S. Cheng
Click Here for Kathleen A. Kelly
Click Here for Stephen M. Murphy
*Ratings are on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 the highest score.
Why a Judge Report Card?
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 lawyers who regularly appear in front of them and what court observers tell us about them. This is a big task made more difficult by the complete failure on the part of judges to share basic information. This report has information on fourteen judges whose terms end in January, 2025 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.” As of December 19, 2023, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office has filed 373 motions to detain “the most serious drug dealing suspects” pending trial because of the extreme public safety risk they pose. Yet of 373 detention motions filed, the court has granted only 38, so the other drug-dealing defendants often are left to continue to sell their fentanyl and other deadly drugs on our streets. (Source: https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/news/felony-narcotics-prosecutions/)
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.