2026 Judge Report Cards
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.
JUDGE REPORT CARD
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.
Below are the initial results of our 2026 Judge Report Card, with judges rated as “Fail,” “Pass” or “Not Evaluated.” Some judges had served in office for a year or less when this evaluation began. As such, we feel compelled to issue a grade of “Not Evaluated,” but it is no reflection on their abilities. Similarly, Stop Crime’s emphasis is on public safety and criminal justice, so we generally offer no evaluation of judges whose primary focus has been on civil law. When appropriate, however, we also examine judges’ conduct in family law, since family court cases often involve domestic violence, abuse or harassment and restraining orders.
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.
Report Card Grades
FAIL:
Judge Michelle Tong- FAIL
Judge Tong received the lowest rating of any of the 27 judges we evaluated this cycle whose terms will end at the beginning of next year. She recorded an overall score of just 1.1 (on a scale of 1 to 5) from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts.* More than one respondent indicated they wished they could assign a score of “zero.” Courtroom attorneys also reported the minimum possible rating, 1.0, for her fairness and bias evaluation.
One courtroom observer noted that she “consistently dismissed/discharged cases. Greatly endangers public by releasing all possible defendants.” Another stated “Tong: note she has only been assigned to traffic, small claims and civil harassment court because she is not qualified for anything else.”
Judge Michelle Tong has been the focus of several critical local media articles, especially during her time presiding in Family Court. (See https://sfstandard.com/2025/11/09/sf-domestic-violence-family-court-judges-child-abduction/).
In one shocking case, Judge Tong green‑lit what became the effective abduction of a two‑year‑old autistic boy to Kazakhstan—a country that does not recognize the Hague Abduction Convention—despite being explicitly warned that his father might never see him again. American parents cannot use the Convention to seek the return of children from Kazakhstan. Tong nonetheless allowed the mother to take the child abroad in 2024 for a supposedly two‑week trip. The judge breezily assuring the father that based on her own research, she was confident they would return. He has not seen his son since.
This occurred even though, in 2023, the original judge on the case had granted the father—a local engineer—full custody and a two‑year domestic violence restraining order against the abusive mother. When Judge Tong replaced that judge, she compounded the injustice by ordering the father to pay $20,000 of his ex-wife’s legal fees and expenses, effectively forcing a documented victim of domestic violence to subsidize his own abuser.
In another egregious case, Judge Tong denied a restraining order for a teenager being harassed by notorious serial stalker Bill Gene Hobbs, who was later sentenced to prison for a series of sexual assaults and battery against various women.
According to the SF Standard, “Tong spent 17 years as an attorney for San Francisco’s public defender’s office before running for judge in 2020. She was initially assigned to small-claims court, then civil harassment — a position even less desirable than family court but with significant power.”
“In one controversial decision in 2023, Tong denied a restraining order for a teenager who was being harassed by notorious serial stalker Bill Gene Hobbs. Hobbs was later sentenced to prison for a series of sexual assaults and battery on (nine) San Francisco women.”
“Two victims made statements before the sentencing, detailing how being assaulted by Hobbs has changed their life. ‘The assault I experienced has completely changed my life,’ said one of the victims named Karina… She said she withdrew from life, had night terrors and panic attacks after the incident, and still reacts when runners come past her. ‘Wow, get over yourself,’ interrupted Hobbs.”
Another victim of Judge Tong’s family law rulings appeared in her court while recovering from a beating from an ex-boyfriend that resulted in “a fractured eye socket and broken nose,” according to the San Francisco Standard. “He also owed her nearly $7,000. Tong ruled that he needed to pay back only $555,” and the judge just laughed at the domestic violence survivor when asked why.
“A year later, a criminal court ordered her ex to pay her $32,000. He’s now serving a sentence of seven years to life for torture and abuse,” the Standard concluded. (See https://sfstandard.com/2025/11/09/sf-domestic-violence-family-court-judges-child-abduction/)
In yet another questionable case, a mother petitioned Judge Tong for a restraining order to protect her and her children from her ex-partner. In what has become a familiar pattern for this judge, the request was denied and joint custody granted instead. In a follow-up hearing in front of another judge, the visits by the father were severely limited. During her tenure at Family Court, Judge Tong denied almost half of restraining order requests, significantly less than the average in San Francisco.
Judge Tong was later reassigned to civil harassment and traffic court responsibilities. She had previously been disqualified from criminal court for bias at the request of District Attorney Brooke Jenkins.
Judge Carolyn Gold- FAIL
Judge Gold earned a very poor average survey rating of just 1.4 on a scale of 1 to 5 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts.* Courtroom attorneys rated her knowledge of the law (1.0, the lowest possible score) and fairness/bias (1.3) as particularly deficient.
Judge Gold has repeatedly endangered public safety in at least 10 cases relating to domestic violence, burglary, robbery, illegal guns, dangerous drugs, grand theft, false imprisonment of victims and hate crimes.
She released a domestic violence defendant (Travis Shoemaker) also charged with false imprisonment, assault and battery, and ordered him to stay away from a girlfriend he allegedly attacked. A week after Judge Gold released him, the defendant was arrested for violating the stay-away order along with possession of methamphetamines. Violating protective orders traumatizes victims.
Gold also released another repeat drug dealer pretrial (Adrien Thierry, charged as a convicted felon with six crimes including illegal possession of a loaded firearm while committing drug dealer crimes), even though a previous judge determined that releasing him was dangerous to the public. He was arrested with large amounts of drugs for sale in his possession while armed with a loaded weapon. Defendant Thierry had been previously convicted five times for drug dealing and illegal possession of guns. Yet another judge later denied release of the same felon without continuous electronic monitoring.
There is a pattern to Gold’s judicial actions in repeat drug dealer cases. In another 2023 case (DiMercurio), a twice-convicted felon was charged with three felony counts related to use of a loaded firearm by a felon and possessing fentanyl. The defendant had previously been convicted of identity theft and selling drugs in San Francisco. Gold ordered the defendant released on OR (Own Recognizance). Another San Francisco judge subsequently revoked the release to protect the public.
In July 2024, Judge Gold released a defendant charged with second-degree burglary of a vehicle and receiving/buying stolen property while he was released on his own recognizance from another felony case. Another judge said release “would not protect the public or the victim.” Nonetheless, Gold released defendant Davis on his own recognizance. When he failed to make his next court date, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest, but this was the last time Gold heard this case.
In yet another repeat offender case, Shawn Savoy, previously convicted four times for Marin and San Francisco burglaries, was arrested for breaking a window and burglary of a Nob Hill grocery store. Despite already having his OR revoked for cause twice, Gold released him again. Unsurprisingly, he then failed to appear in court three times.
In 2024, a defendant was charged with a hate crime and assault after he threw a door frame at and allegedly followed a victim, repeatedly yelling bigoted, bias-motivated slurs. Despite evidence including video, Judge Gold dismissed all hate crime charges. District Attorney Brooke Jenkins told the Bay Area Reporter that Gold’s ruling “reflects a continued issue at the Hall of Justice of judges failing to accurately apply the law to the facts of a case.”
Judge Gold received a bare minimum rating (“qualified”) from the Bar Association of San Francisco prior to assuming her position on the Superior Court; nothing in her record to date indicates that she has improved her knowledge of the law or related skills.
Gold’s writings also show she is ideologically biased against law enforcement, blaming police for previous car break-ins for example. She also pledged to fight for a political platform on policy issues. As the San Francisco Chronicle editorialized, this type of political bias “should be a non-starter for a judge, whose fidelity should be to the law as written, as spelled out in Canon 5 of the state’s code of judicial ethics.” (See https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Singh-for-SF-judge-in-Seat-21-15024227.php)
Gold also opposed criminal charges for serious drug offenses, saying “the entire War on Drugs seemed to be a means to lock up lower income men of color.”
Judge Gold assumed her position on the bench in January 2021 and has worked in several departments across the criminal and civil divisions of the San Francisco Superior Court: Department 11, preliminary hearings; Department 14, domestic violence; Department 18, early dispositions; and currently is in the family law/domestic violence restraining order section of the civil court.
Judge Gerardo Sandoval- FAIL
Judge Sandoval earned a below average survey rating of 2.6 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts. Courtroom attorneys rated his knowledge of the law (1.0, the lowest possible score) and fairness/bias (1.3) as particularly deficient. None of the survey respondents chose him as a judge they would want to adjudicate an important trial of a serious crime.
Judge Sandoval’s reluctance to keep dangerous defendants locked up is shown by his pattern of leniency toward offenders who go on to commit serious violence. According to SF Public Safety News, one example occurred last April, when “Judge Sandoval granted pre-trial release to Darnel Scott after his arrest for running away from police with a machine gun “stuffed down his pants.” Within weeks of his release, Scott was arrested by Antioch PD and charged with a gang murder in Contra Costa County.
Defendant Darnel Scott was a heavily armed, repeat‑offending felon and reputed gang member who was back on the street only because Judge Gerardo Sandoval granted him pretrial release despite his “penchant for auto burglary” and “ongoing dispute with other heavily‑armed criminals.” Defendant Scott is reportedly closely tied to Cameron Haynes, known as San Francisco’s “most prolific armed felon,” and is described as part of the same violent milieu of tit‑for‑tat shootings.
Judge Sandoval also has been criticized for not taking drug dealing or organized retail crime seriously, after sometimes allowing repeat offenders to avoid felony charges or releasing them prior to trial. In February 2025, Sandoval released convicted robber Marcos Smith-Pequeno on his own recognizance. Smith-Pequeno was part of a retail theft gang that allegedly stole $4,000 in merchandise from a Walgreens one day and returned the next morning with three other burglars to steal an additional $12,000. They were also accused of ransacking the store, breaking display cases and throwing things at employees.
District Attorney Brooke Jenkins had requested pretrial detention for Smith-Pequeno, saying “Organized retail theft is a major driver of crime and public safety concern for our neighborhoods and businesses.” San Francisco Standard reported that Smith-Pequeno has prior convictions for grand theft and robbery in California and was on supervised probation related to a felony robbery offense in Oakland at the time of his arrest. Crime has been a factor in the closure of numerous pharmacies in San Francisco neighborhoods.
In another case, Sandoval rejected the People’s request for a third strike conviction on repeat offender Ronnie Lee Moody. Moody was charged with 13 felonies for fleeing from police in a stolen Mercedes-Benz, crashing into four cars and causing whiplash and other injuries, threatening a guard, and trying to steal a police officer’s firearm. The police officer told the court that he had “no doubt” Moody intended to kill him that night, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. At which point, Moody interjected “I wish I would have blew your m_______ing brains out.” Moody had already done prison time for a 2002 stalking case, a 2005 assault on two police officers and a 2012 domestic violence incident.
Judge Sandoval was previously a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He gained nationwide notoriety when he advocated that the U.S. disband its military. He was elected as a judge in 2009 despite being rated as “unqualified” by the San Francisco Bar Association.
Judge Sandoval was tied to Victor Makras, convicted of bank fraud during a city government corruption scandal, receiving a personal loan of between $10,000 and $100,000 from the real estate company owned and managed by Makras in 2016. (See San Francisco Standard, “No prison time for real estate mogul convicted in SF corruption scandal.” )
PASS
Judge Alexandra Gordon- PASS
Judge Gordon is highly esteemed. She earned the highest average survey rating of all judges evaluated, with a 4.9 score from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts.* She was highly rated in all categories including fairness/bias, knowledge of the law and judicial temperament. Nearly all attorney survey respondents indicated they would want to appear before her if there was an important trial on a serious crime.
Judge Julia Cervantes- PASS
Despite the fact that she has been a judge less than a year, Judge Cervantes is well-respected. She earned a high average survey rating of 4.6 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts. Her judicial temperament rating (4.7) was particularly high.
Judge Richard Darwin- PASS
Judge Darwin earned a high average survey rating of 4.5 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts. His ratings on fairness/bias (4.75) and judicial temperament (4.75) were very good.
However, when defendant Daniel Cauitch was charged with burglary in 2021, Judge Darwin released the defendant prior to trial. He was assigned to Assertive Case Management and only required to wear an electronic monitoring device, despite prosecutors’ request that the defense’s motion for release be denied.
Two weeks later, Cauich was charged with attempted murder after stabbing 94 year old Ahn Taylor multiple times and. A repeat offender with a long criminal arrest record, he had facing allegations ranging from burglary and vandalism to murder (charges were dropped). He had previously been convicted on multiple burglary charges and served more than 100 days in jail plus probation. He was also one of three people arrested for a string of home burglaries in the North Beach neighborhood in which the thieves targeted bicycles, according to police.
Judge Eric Fleming- PASS
Judge Fleming earned a high average survey rating of 4.5 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts. His ratings on judicial temperament were particularly high.
Judge Kenneth Wine- PASS
Judge Wine earned a high average survey rating of 4.4 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts.* He received a perfect rating (5.0) for judicial temperament. However, our knowledgeable Court Watch volunteers sometimes saw a judge who appeared to release some defendants on OR, despite their extensive criminal histories, along with others who have a pattern of non-appearance on previous bench warrants.
Judge Christine Van Aken- PASS
Judge Van Aken earned a high average survey rating of 4.4 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts. Her scores on judicial temperament (4.8) and fairness (4.7) were particularly strong. When asked which judge they would want to appear before for an important trial on a serious crime, more than half of attorneys responding listed Judge Van Aken in their top three choices.
Judge Rochelle East- PASS
Judge East earned a relatively high average survey rating of 4.3 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts.* She is ranked highly for her judicial temperament.
Judge Braden Woods- PASS
Judge Woods earned a relatively high average survey rating of 4.3 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts.* He received a very high rating (4.8) for knowledge of the law. When asked which judge they would want to appear before for an important trial on a serious crime, several attorneys listed him among their top three choices.
Judge Brian Stretch- PASS
Judge Stretch earned a relatively high average survey rating of 4.3 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts.* He received a very high rating (4.9) for fairness.
Judge Harry Dorfman- PASS
Judge Dorfman earned a relatively high average survey rating of 4.1 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts.* He is particularly admired for his knowledge of the law (4.5).
Judge Brendan Conroy- PASS
Judge Conroy earned an average survey rating of 3.3 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts.* He received a high rating (4.5) for knowledge of the law.
Judge Michael McNaughton- PASS
Judge McNaughton received an average rating of 3.0 from trial attorneys who closely observe the courts. He received a poor rating for judicial temperament (2.1) but a better score for knowledge of the law (3.3).
NOT EVALUATED
Some judges had served in office for a year or less when this evaluation began. As such, we feel compelled to issue a grade of “Not Evaluated,” but it is no reflection on their abilities.
Stop Crime’s emphasis is on public safety and criminal justice, so we offer no evaluation of judges whose primary focus has been on civil law or who have little exposure to criminal justice trial attorneys. Similarly, a “Not Evaluated” grade is no reflection on their capabilities; they may be excellent judges; we just claim no expertise in this area. In certain egregious cases, we have taken notice of family law cases, as domestic violence and similar issues can be involved. Finally, we have not issued an evaluation of Judge Garrett L. Wong, as he has retired.
The following judges were not evaluated:
Judge Anne Costin
Judge Maria Evangelista
Judge Daniel Flores
Judge Adrienne Rogers
Judge Charles Haines
Judge Ethan Schulman
Judge Mary Wiss
Judge Ai Mori
Judge Lianne Dumas
Judge Bobby Luna
Judge John Echeverria
Judge Dawn Payne
These grades rely in part on survey rankings by courtroom observers, particularly prosecutors. The public defenders office was unable/unwilling to identify its courtroom attorneys despite an official California Public Records Act request or its ability 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. Stop Crime Action can provide the email exchange with the public defenders office upon request. In the past, the Bay Area Bar Association was similarly unable/unwilling to provide a list of private defense attorneys.
*All survey ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5, where “5” is very high rating, and ”1” is a very low rating.
