San Francisco’s courts are a circus, but the act is wearing thin. Public Defender Manohar Raju recently protested that his office is too “overloaded” and “overworked” to handle new cases, pointing to a supposed 31 percent surge in criminal filings over the past three years. This story was enough to convince Mayor Daniel Lurie and the Board of Supervisors to keep his $52 million budget intact, while raising it to $57.6 million in subsequent years, even as the city braces for a $2 billion projected deficit. The public defender’s budget has swelled from $41 million in 2019 to $52 million in 2024 — a 27 percent jump. But does the data support his tale of a case tsunami, or is this just a masterclass in dodging scrutiny? Let’s cut through the fog with some cold, hard numbers.
Everyone can agree that San Francisco courts are excessively overwhelmed with a backlog of cases, but is this really due to a rise in criminal case filings on an annual basis? In 2019, before District Attorney Chesa Boudin and Public Defender Raju took the stage, the courts were indeed swamped with 7,895 non-traffic infractions, 3,316 non-traffic misdemeanors, and 4,638 felonies. But since then, the tide has turned sharply. According to the California Judicial Council reports from 2019–24 fiscal years, felony filings plunged 25 percent, non-traffic misdemeanors dipped 18 percent, and non-traffic infractions nosedived a staggering 61 percent. That’s a 35 percent drop in criminal filings on average. While Raju’s budget has ballooned, the actual new incoming workload has shrunk. His 31 percent “rise” is more smoke and mirrors than true case overload.
–
S.F. Criminal Court Filings 2019–24
It takes two to tangle
So, if criminal filings are down, why is public safety tanking, overdoses soaring, and retailers bolting? In 2019, just 29 percent of San Francisco’s appointed or elected judges came from public defender or civil rights advocate backgrounds. By 2024, that number had climbed to 38 percent — a third more anticarceral judges who treat felonies with probation and denied motions to detain.
Some court delays seem designed to exhaust victims and witnesses while allowing defendants to accrue shorter post-conviction jail time.
Before former District Attorney Boudin and current Public Defender Raju took office, San Francisco Superior Courts had an annual criminal caseload clearance rate of 83 percent. Former Public Defender Jeff Adachi served for 16 years before he died suddenly in 2019. His team cleared 35 percent more annual criminal caseloads with a smaller budget than Raju has.
So though we did see a significant increase in soft-on-crime judges, the court delays also indicate operational inefficiencies stemming from procedural requests and scheduling dysfunctions. Where does the public defender’s office fit into this mess? Let’s look.
Take Deputy Public Defender Anita Nabha in the Grandpa Vicha case, blaming years of delays to “COVID backlogs” and the need for “important work” to prep cases. But looking across 56 counties in California, our Judicial Council statistics show most counties are not grappling with these excuses. San Francisco’s courts are uniquely mired, and it’s not just the pandemic’s lingering shadow.
Frank Noto of Stop Crime Action points out that public defenders who routinely request drawn-out continuances, allows defendants to amass “two-for-one” sentencing credits for time served in detention. This strategy works exceptionally well when evidence against a defendant is airtight, shaving down eventual jail time with surgical precision.
Less often used, public defenders can also demand a speedy trial knowing the courts are backed up, giving way to lenient plea bargains or dropped charges. This happened in 2024 when some 60-plus misdemeanor cases were dropped because cases languished past their expiration dates.
In the Marcos Smith-Pequeno $16,000 Walgreen’s looting case, when cameras showed up in the courtroom, the public defense conveniently asked for further continuance to review evidence, which Judge Daniel Flores happily granted. In encore fashion, the defense secured yet another delay at the next hearing, keeping the judicial merry-go-round spinning.
While some delays are defensible, others seem designed to exhaust victims and witnesses while allowing defendants to accrue shorter post-conviction jail time. These tactics, paired with judicial leniency and inefficiencies, deepen the dysfunction.
Voters can weigh in on Public Defender Raju when he is up for reelection next year, but what about the two dozen judges up for reelection in 2026? Most will waltz back into office unopposed unless a challenger dares to unseat an incumbent.
Oversight and state laws ignored
Why is San Francisco’s court clearance rate a dismal 32 percent? Because these numbers are “incomplete.” California’s Constitution, as stated below, demands that California courts report operational metrics — like caseloads and resolved cases — to the Judicial Council for oversight.
California Constitution
Article VI, Section 6
(d) To improve the administration of justice the council shall survey judicial business and make recommendations to the courts, make recommendations annually to the Governor and Legislature, adopt rules for court administration, practice and procedure, and perform other functions prescribed by statute. The rules adopted shall not be inconsistent with statute. …
(f) Judges shall report to the council as the Chief Justice directs concerning the condition of judicial business in their courts. They shall cooperate with the council and hold court as assigned.
But since 2020, San Francisco courts have been ghosting the council, submitting zero data on resolved criminal cases. The excuse? A new case management system rolled out in 2022 that is apparently still “too hard” to use three years later. Presiding Judge Rochelle C. East, elected by her peers in 2024 for a two-year term, oversees this administration. When I asked the state Judicial Council how the public can chime in, they pointed me to a webpage for public comment. By law, the California Judicial Council is supposed to recommend fixes to the governor and legislature, but enforcement lies with county and state leadership.
San Francisco voters urge action
A recent 2025 San Francisco voter survey below shows the public’s frustration with public safety and criminal justice. Almost nine in 10 voters feel judges lenient on crimes are hurting our city (85 percent Top 3 Box Agree) and many feel city leadership can do more to prevent the closure of San Francisco businesses. Roughly one-third feel strongly (35 percent Top 2 Box Agree) that San Francisco leadership is doing everything it can to prevent business closures — leaving a huge opportunity gap for the mayor and the board of supervisors to do more.
The courts’ congestion, Raju’s ballooning budget, and a shroud of secrecy create a toxic trio suffocating justice in San Francisco. Voters are clamoring for city and state leaders to swoop in with decisive action. Instead, they’ve watched more cash funneled into a system that’s fueling the very judicial chaos they’re desperate to fix.