Who We Are:

We are advocates for safety, justice, and reform. We support policies that give victims of crime a voice and keep residents from becoming victims in the first place. We seek passage of more effective criminal justice laws. When officials fail to keep everyone safe, we will shine a spotlight on those lawmakers and judges. We know crime isn’t solved when politicians say “overall” numbers are down while ignoring huge spikes in categories like home burglaries and shootings.

We are committed to needed police and prison reforms. We can focus on reform while ensuring that dangerous and career criminals don’t reoffend. We educate the public about crime and what is being done to address it. We also tell victim stories in our, “Readers’ Stories on Crime” section.

What We Focus On:

• Judge Report Card Stop Crime Action sponsored a project to enhance voter education for the San Francisco primary election of March 5th, 2024. Fourteen incumbent Superior Court judges were up for reelection for a new 6-year term, but voters typically receive little or no useful information about these candidates beyond their education and prior experience. Our group prepared written evaluations of these judges based on their criminal justice records. Our goals were to explain the operations of the Superior Court and help voters make informed choices by advancing transparency and accountability. NOTE: IF A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE RUNS UNOPPOSED FOR RE-ELECTION, HIS OR HER NAME DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE BALLOT AND HE OR SHE IS AUTOMATICALLY RE-ELECTED FOLLOWING THE GENERAL ELECTION.

• Anti-Asian hate crimes are on the rise and have long been a problem. We will work to keep the Asian community safe while focusing on all types of hate crimes, including anti-Semitism. We must also prosecute the violent criminals who are preying on seniors.

• Organized crime rings are behind most car break-ins and home burglaries. Wherever the crime is happening, we must focus on organized crime by catching and prosecuting repeat offenders. 

 Why a Judge Report Card?

The bedrock of the right to vote is the right to cast an informed vote.  Our California Constitution requires that Superior Court judges shall be elected.  In San Francisco, however, the average resident has minimal access to information about who our judges are or the decisions they make daily that affect our lives and community safety.   

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.  This is a big task made more difficult by the complete failure on the part of judges to share basic information.  This report has information on fourteen judges whose terms end in January, 2025 but we plan to continue until we can provide information about all 52 San Francisco Superior Court judges.  They answer 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. 

Should Our Judiciary be Transparent?

Do judges bear some of the responsibility for our crime problem?  Should their actions be transparent? We think the answer to both questions is “YES.”  As of December 19, 2023, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office has filed 373 motions to detain “the most serious drug dealing suspects” pending trial because of the extreme public safety risk they pose. Yet of 373 detention motions filed, the court has granted only 38, so the other drug-dealing defendants often are left to continue to sell their fentanyl and other deadly drugs on our streets. (Source: https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/news/felony-narcotics-prosecutions/)   

Currently there are 517 defendants with open bench warrants who failed to appear for narcotics cases after being released by the court, according to the DA’s Office.  That means they were released by judges pending trial and then disappeared, for more than 30 months on average. Some drug dealer defendants did it several times. Who are the judges who released them, and why? 

In California, the Governor typically appoints an experienced lawyer who has submitted a voluminous questionnaire to serve as a Superior Court judge.* The terms of approximately one-third of the judges expire every two years. We asked each of the judges (except recently appointed Judges Frankel and Rhoads) whose terms end in 2025 what criteria voters should use to decide whether they merit a new term.  We also asked them for the non-confidential parts of the questionnaires they submitted to the governor when they sought appointment to their first terms.   The judges who received our request got together and collectively refused to provide this basic information, stating that judicial ethics rules prohibited them from commenting on issues that may come before them.  Of course, we were not asking for that type of information.  

We also asked all the assistant district attorneys and deputy public defenders their views on the performance of these judges in court.  After all, these are the lawyers who most frequently appear in criminal courts and presumably know them best. We heard back from these lawyers but sensed a level of concern about professional risks if they said bad things about incumbent judges.  Judges complained that we were not sending surveys to an additional set of lawyers they appoint to handle criminal matters. When we agreed to do so, they would not provide us any names of such attorneys and sent us to the Bar Association of San Francisco who refused our request for the list. 

Undeterred, we used our people power to directly observe courtroom proceedings and undertake extraordinary research to read court filings, orders, decisions, media reports and other material.  Reviewing judicial decisions is particularly difficult in San Francisco because of the antiquated method of accessing criminal case files.  In neighboring Alameda and San Mateo counties, it’s possible to access criminal files by case number, defendant’s name, or court date through their online portals.   Under each case, it’s possible to see court filings, identify any judicial orders that are made and identify the judge making each decision.   

In San Francisco, the Superior Court’s online data portal provides basic summaries of case resolutions by case number, but the names of the defendants and the judges handling the cases are not available online.   To identify the defendants and judges, or to find out what happened in any case, one must physically go down to the Hall of Justice and complete a separate form by hand for every case you want to review.  You may have to pay a fee to access cases, and you may have to wait a week or more for the clerks to retrieve a single case file.   Research that would take one hour in San Mateo or Alameda could take weeks in San Francisco. That’s part of the reason our research is limited and does not address decisions on diversion, sentencing, plea bargains, rulings on motions to suppress, motions to revoke probation, etc.   

We were able to overcome many but not all obstacles to your right to know about the conduct of the San Francisco Superior Court.  We now present our Report Card on some of the judges about whom there was adequate information to provide a Pass/Fail grade.  We will continue to evaluate judges and also urge systemic reforms.  We call upon the Superior Court and Bar Association of San Francisco to use their greater resources to increase transparency and systematically provide data on decisions by all judges for public review.  In addition, we are formulating recommendations for institutional reforms that will increase transparency on judicial proceedings and access to judicial records.  You have a right to know.   

* After the Governor’s appointment, and every six years following, that judge’s term ends and he or she is subject to election by the voters and other experienced lawyers can run for that judicial seat.  Rather than lifetime appointments, the authority to keep that judge in office or elect someone else who runs is up to the voters.