Throughout the Bay Area, hundreds of misdemeanor charges have been dismissed, or will be shortly, in response to a state court order involving the San Francisco Superior Court. The appellate ruling in Mendoza v. Superior Court and subsequent finger pointing of blame between the San Francisco Superior Court and District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, underscore the need for judges to educate the public about their role and responsibilities in the legal system.
One thing is certain: Crime victims, criminal defendants, and the general public were poorly served by the Superior Court’s post-Covid refusal and delay to schedule trials. Mendoza was charged with various driving-related misdemeanors, including DUI, in October 2021 but a trial on the charges was delayed for over two years in response to the courtroom shutdown because of Covid. After government shutdown orders were lifted, Superior Court judges further delayed her trial date despite her objections. A different local judge denied her appeal but a state court of appeal ruled that our local Superior Court judges violated her state constitutional right to a speedy trial. The state court also criticized our local district attorney’s office for failing to move the prosecution of the case forward or justify the numerous delays.
As a result, Mendoza’s charges have now been dismissed without a trial. The state appellate court’s ruling has been extended to many more cases in San Francisco and its impact will likely extend to other counties. No findings of innocence or guilt. No day in court for victims. No penalty as there would have been if the defendants were found guilty.
The appellate decision (authored by a former San Francisco Superior Court judge) criticized our local court in the Mendoza case for issuing a standardized, 19-page decision that lacked any reference to the facts in the case — a boilerplate document simply adding the name and number of the case. The appellate decision admonished the district attorney for not providing the reasons to support a delayed trial. But the district attorney had been ready to proceed, opposed delays in other cases, and agreed that the case was ready. It was the Superior Court’s desire and decision to delay the case. Both sides were ready to proceed.
Repeated delays and continuances may often be merited but when unexplained they erode public trust and confidence in the judicial system.
While there is some dispute as to whether there are more cases that may be dismissed as a result of this decision, court delays in general are routine and rampant. Sometimes defendants previously released fail to appear in court. Judges delay matters even if a defendant already in custody in jail doesn’t feel like coming to court and refuses to get on the Sheriff’s bus. Repeated delays and continuances may often be merited but when unexplained they erode public trust and confidence in the judicial system.
Our local Superior Court judges should move beyond blaming the district attorney’s office for the dismissal of these cases and instead use this decision as an opportunity to explain to San Franciscans what goes on in their courtrooms at the Hall of Justice and Civic Center. The Judicial Council of California that runs our state court system long ago recognized the importance of judges getting from behind the bench and into the communities to explain what the courts do. In 2006, its report stated that, “Respect for the law depends upon public confidence in the integrity of the justice system.” Unfortunately, except for serving on a jury, the more the public is involved with courts, the less favorably they view them. While local courts had more favorable views than the state system overall, the council hasn’t surveyed the public in almost 20 years. It’s time to do so again.
Except for lawyers who practice in our courts, few San Franciscans can name more than a couple of our local Superior Court judges, currently numbering at 51. A few judges have increased their presence and speak at high schools and law schools. Judges running for retention have spoken at political events. They should all consider part of their public service explaining how the judicial system works to community and neighborhood associations, merchant groups, PTAs, union gatherings, retirees, ethnic groups, and others. They can also coordinate presentations with the district attorney’s office, the public defender, and other attorney groups as officers of the court and without reference to any specific case, so that the public can better understand who does what in the courtrooms, especially in criminal, family, and probate courts. After this November election, there will be a 16-month window of opportunity before the next election so that none of the education effort can be misconstrued as politicking.
The consequences of the Mendoza case do untold harm to crime victims and faith in the criminal justice system in San Francisco generally. Education about the judicial system is more important than ever.
