California Judges Association pushes back against SF district attorney's criticism

The California Judges Association responded Thursday to criticisms of individual judges by the San Francisco district attorney in recent weeks, saying personal attacks make the job of a judge "more hazardous."

District Attorney Brooke Jenkins has publicly criticized three Superior Court judges over the past year, saying at least one was "ignoring the will of the people," by imposing lenient sentences after successful prosecutions of public safety crimes.

She issued a statement on Feb. 11 saying she and San Francisco citizens have a right to know about and criticize judges' decisions. "The citizens get to have their own opinions on judicial performance and for that, they need the facts," she stated.

The judges' association said in a statement to the Daily Journal on Thursday, "A judge's job is to deliver justice in an effective and impartial manner. While judges don't always make popular decisions, they will always do their best to make decisions that align with the law.

"If individuals believe errors were made in a hearing, they can utilize the appeal process. Justice is served in our courtrooms, and personal attacks and criticism of individual judges based on their lawful rulings make just make the job of a judge more hazardous."

Jenkins attended a protest outside the courthouse last March after retired assigned Judge Kay Tsenin allowed mental health treatment rather than prison for a man with a long criminal history who pleaded guilty to stabbing a 94-year-old Asian American woman in June 2021. Jenkins criticized Tsenin's decision in a March 15 tweet, writing, "Not only was this victim denied justice, but all San Franciscans were left less safe today due to this reckless decision."

The president of the Bar Association of San Francisco at the time, Teresa L. Johnson, said that death threats had been made against Tsenin following her decision in that case.

She told the Daily Journal in March 2024: "My understanding from Judge Tsenin and folks at the bar association who are in contact with her is that she did receive them and that they appeared to have been prompted by the result of the decision in this in this case."

Jenkins also took to X this January to criticize San Francisco Superior Court Judge Gerardo Sandoval, who gave a misdemeanor sentence to a man for a minor theft who had previous felony convictions. Jenkins said in that tweet that "the clear will of the voters" had been ignored after they passed Proposition 36 in November, which allows for felony prison sentences for repeat offenders in this type of case.

Jenkins also commented after another case in January, when Superior Court Judge Bruce Chan handed down a sentence that resulted in the defendant spending four months in prison in an auto burglary case, though the guilty party had prior felony convictions.

Sandoval was approached for comment by email. Sandoval and Tsenin did not respond by press time. Tsenin and Chan were approached for comment by phone. Chan responded that he was prohibited from any comment pursuant to the Code of judicial ethics.

However, on Feb. 25, court spokeswoman Ann E. Donlan sent an email clarifying that although the defendant spent only four months (118 days) in custody, Chan had sentenced him to the maximum period of confinement -- three years and eight months -- but suspended it and released him on probation. The defendant "has been ordered to appear in person for weekly progress reports for the past 6 weeks," Donlan wrote. "He is in full compliance with the terms of his supervision regarding weekly reporting to his probation officer, adhering to a curfew monitored by a GPS device, seeking employment, and weekly meetings with his case manager.

"If he violates his terms of supervision, he could be violated and then would be faced with serving the terms of his maximum sentence," she wrote.

At the time, Jenkins told ABC News, "I think we have a culture at the Hall of Justice here in San Francisco of judges viewing property crime as less significant, finding opportunities to not hear trials and to send people back out to sadly use the courthouse as a revolving door."

Jenkins' Feb. 11 statement to the media said: "As San Francisco District Attorney it is my responsibility, and right, to share with the public the facts around what happens in criminal cases. Although your friends on the bench may not like transparency around their decisions, San Franciscans have asked for, expect and deserve to know what is happening at the courthouse.

"The judges' robes are not a cloak of invisibility that confer upon them the power to act in secret nor does it turn them into deities such that their decisions become unquestionably wise."

Jenkins' office did not respond to the judges' association's comments in time for print.

Retired Santa Clara County Judge Eugene Hyman said Jenkins' comments were not "a very helpful way to educate the judiciary and the public about concerns."

"I'm not denying that she does not have a First Amendment right to do so," said Hyman. "I think that a better approach would have been to have discussed a sentencing without mentioning specific judges and saying that their office had concerns about sentencing."

Hyman said judges see themselves as members of a community and depending on that community's perception of leniency around certain crimes, judges may make decisions based on that. He called San Francisco a "liberal county."

He added: "I think that at a minimum, if the public feels that their judges are too lenient with respect to sentencing, they should be able to, in a constructive way, communicate that to the judges that is not binding on the judges. But if that's in fact how the community feels, I think judges should know that."

Another former Santa Clara County judge, Jeremy Fogel, also a former federal judge in the Northern District of California, suggested in an email that Jenkins was "trying to make judges in general more hesitant to impose sentences that she views as lenient and to strengthen her own image as a 'tough on crime' prosecutor."

"It's not unusual for individual judges to face criticism for their decisions," said Fogel. "And there's no legal or ethical restriction on another elected official (like the DA) making critical comments. That said, the prohibition against judges commenting on pending cases does create a significant imbalance, and the public rarely hears all of the reasons for a judge's decision, such as the specific facts of the case and background information about the defendant available to the judge."

Fogel added that the judiciary needs to find better ways to inform the public about what judges do and why and suggested it would be that a good practice for judges facing or anticipating criticism to provide as much context as they can on decisions.

The judges' association said it was working on a series of free regional town halls and other educational programs to help the public gain greater understanding of the role of the judges.

It added: "It is imperative that California judges continue to uphold their ethical and constitutional duties to remain fair and impartial, even in the face of criticism. Their unwavering commitment to following the rule of law strengthens the legal system and reinforces the public's confidence in the courts."