An intense and growing battle between District Attorney Brooke Jenkins and judges of the San Francisco Superior Court erupted Friday night before an in-person crowd of over 100 and more on-line at the Commonwealth Club of California. Jenkins responded to a torrent of criticism of her office from Superior Court Judge Linda Colfax at the recent sentencing hearing in the Grandpa Vicha murder case by volleying her own accusations that the judge’s criticisms created a biased environment against her office. Meanwhile, Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman has fined Public Defender Mano Raju $26,000 for refusing to represent 26 indigent felony defendants. San Franciscans observing the verbal and courtroom fisticuffs wonder, “What does justice look like?,” which was explored at a Commonwealth Club discussion moderated by journalist Dion Lim.
Jenkins’s appearance follows two emotional and high-profile setbacks for her prosecutors in the murder trials involving the deaths of senior Asian American victims Vicha Ratanapakdee (84 years old and known popularly as “Grandpa Vicha”) and Yik Oi Huang (88 years old and known popularly as “Grandma Huang”). While Grandma Huang’s assailant was found guilty of murder in late last year, his sentencing was delayed until late this year after the judge granted his request for an attorney after he fired his previous one. Grandpa Vicha’s killer was sentenced to probation without serving state prison time after being convicted of involuntary manslaughter and acquitted of murder charges and being held in jail prior to the trial. In both cases, the crimes against defenseless senior victims occurred at the height of anti-Asian violence and the trial outcomes took over five years.
Before a courtroom packed with Grandpa Vicha’s family and community for the March 26 sentencing hearing, Judge Colfax excoriated the assistant district attorney for misrepresentations and lack of candor and did not allow him to respond to her severe criticism. Colfax outlined what she termed “repeated misstatements of fact and law” in the district attorney’s sentencing memo and stated that it was “a disservice to the system of justice, the court, the jury, [the victim’s] family, and memory by submitting documents not entirely truthful.” Colfax then rejected the district attorney’s recommendation that the defendant go to state prison and chose to place him on probation so he could obtain psychological and other services to be less of a public safety risk than he would be if he were sentenced to and released from prison with less supervision.
At the Commonwealth Club presentation, Jenkins described Judge Colfax’s courtroom attacks as “completely inappropriate” and “not the way a judge should act.” She described a pattern of “unwarranted, unsubstantiated attacks intended to undermine the attorney in front of the press” and Colfax’s “personal animus” that affects decisions on evidence, is seen by the jury, and “creates distrust of the prosecutor.”
District Attorney Jenkins is calling on San Franciscans to attend court trials, learn about the judges and hold public officials accountable.
When asked by Dion Lim whether justice had been served in the Grandpa Vicha and Grandma Huang cases, Jenkins stated broadly that “most persons would say ‘no.’ How can you take the life of an innocent person and never set foot in state prison?” She then described a defendant’s ability to delay action in a criminal case and accumulate time served in the local jail that reduces the length of an eventual sentence in the much tougher state prison system. In Grandma Huang’s case, Jenkins noted that her office gained a guilty verdict and she expected prison time for the defendant. Nonetheless, she continued, “Delay is not fair. No family should have to endure this.”
When asked what is next, Jenkins harkened back to “the citywide unity” and her own involvement with many audience members that produced the recall of her predecessor District Attorney Chesa Boudin. “We have to continue the fight and advocate as a coalition” to aid future crime victims and to prevent people from being victimized by crime in the first place, she stated. Among other things, she urged the audience to attend court proceedings, respond to jury duty summonses, and report possible crimes.
Public Defender Mano Raju is also pushing back against the Superior Court for fining him for refusing to represent 26 indigent defendants facing felony charges. Raju defended his decision to turn down these cases, citing overwhelming caseloads and insufficient funding to hire attorneys to represent them. He charged that Judge Dorfman’s fine “risked undermining due process … and pushing already overextended staff beyond ethical limits.” At the same time, however, Raju said in his office’s community budget briefing that “We try to take on as many deportation cases as we can,” which are federal and civil matters and only rarely and recently associated with local criminal court public defenders.
It is extraordinarily rare for judges, prosecutors, and public defenders to publicly attack one another at the same time and question their roles in the criminal justice system. Where does the public fit in? Mayor Lurie and the Board of Supervisors are currently deliberating about budget cuts for later this year; an assistant district attorney and deputy public defender face off at the June 3 election for a judicial vacancy; and the public defender himself is running for reelection, currently unopposed, in November. District Attorney Jenkins is calling on San Franciscans to attend court trials, learn about the judges and hold public officials accountable. San Franciscans have a choice on what to say and how to respond. The vital necessity to speak out has never been so present.
