SF Courts in Crisis: Failing Judges, Strikes, and Public Safety at Risk

From controversial bail decisions to court staff walkouts and a Public Defender slowdown, the city’s justice system faces mounting scrutiny — and growing public alarm.

by Frank Noto, Stop Crime Action

There has been an overflowing cornucopia of news coming out of San Francisco’s Superior Court recently:

• Our Judge Report Card — and its aftermath
• Court clerks on strike
• Public Defender’s Office goes on a 15% strike
• Beat a man unconscious in front of his infant child? No problem.

Our grassroots group, Stop Crime Action, issued a “Judge Report Card” in January.
Our purpose is twofold:

1. To provide the public with a primer on San Francisco Superior Court criminal justice operations, and
2. To enhance public education about our judges.

This year, we identified three problematic judges (among more than two dozen evaluated) and issued them “Fail” grades. All three received negative ratings from prosecutors in a confidential survey.

Judge Michelle Tong received the lowest rating among the 27 judges we evaluated this cycle — an overall score of just 1.1 (on a scale of 1 to 5) from trial attorneys. More than one respondent indicated they wished they could assign her a score of “zero.”

According to The Standard, Judge Tong was reassigned after she allowed a defendant in an alleged domestic violence and custody case to travel to Kazakhstan with the child — never to return. She also ordered the victimized parent to pay $20,000 in legal fees.

In another egregious case, Judge Tong denied a restraining order for a teenager who was being harassed by notorious serial stalker Bill Gene Hobbs, who was later sentenced to prison for a series of sexual assaults and batteries against various women.

Last month, Judge Tong appeared to have a June primary election opponent, but attorney Tony Tartaglio later withdrew his candidacy on the advice of members of the legal community. It is a small world among attorneys who practice before the court, and taking on an incumbent judge — no matter how poor the record — is not for the faint of heart when you must continue appearing before that judge’s colleagues.

Now, harassment and domestic violence victims who accuse Tong of victim-blaming, rudeness, and a lack of knowledge of the law are left with little recourse. Several are contemplating the formidable task of attempting to recall a judge.

Judge Carolyn Gold has repeatedly endangered public safety, releasing a domestic violence defendant charged with false imprisonment, assault, and related offenses, who had been ordered to stay away from an allegedly attacked girlfriend. A week later, he was arrested for violating the protective order and possessing methamphetamines.

Gold also released another repeat offender pretrial (charged as a felon with firearm, ammunition, and drug-dealing crimes), even though another judge had previously determined that releasing him posed a danger. Yet another judge later denied his release. Judge Gold earned a very poor average survey rating of just 1.4 (on a scale of 1 to 5) in the survey of trial attorneys, including the lowest possible score on knowledge of the law.

Judge Gerardo Sandoval granted pretrial release to a defendant who fled from police with a machine gun stuffed down his pants. The following month, the defendant was arrested by Antioch police for murder. Sandoval has also been criticized for not taking drug dealing seriously and for allowing repeat offenders to avoid felony charges.

Rather than defend his record in an election, Sandoval chose to retire. Assistant District Attorney Phoebe Maffei is running against Deputy Public Defender Alexandra Pray for the judicial seat. Maffei is an experienced attorney with extensive courtroom experience in domestic violence and elder abuse cases. She successfully prosecuted the case against the man who attacked Speaker Emeritus Nancy Pelosi’s husband.

Our Judge Report Card also issued “PASS” grades to 12 judges. We did not fully evaluate another 12 judges because they were newly appointed, served primarily in civil cases, or retired. You can see the full Judge Report Card here.

Purpose of Our Judge Report Card

Even though judges are a critical link in the public safety chain, members of the public can obtain almost no meaningful information about them beyond their education and previous employment. Virtually nothing is known about most judges’ performance or record while on the bench — even when they are up for election every six years. (Judges who file for reelection but attract no opponent are automatically reelected without appearing on the ballot.)

We recognize the importance of an independent judiciary that makes fair decisions based on the law. But the public deserves transparency and fact-based evaluations of its elected judges’ performance. We aim to shine a light on the judiciary and the criminal justice system.

On Strike: Potential Impacts

You may have heard that San Francisco Superior Court clerks went on strike over compensation, heavy caseloads, and lack of training. When court clerks are unavailable, much of the court’s work slows to a crawl.

While the court has attempted to continue urgent criminal trials and proceedings — such as motions to detain allegedly violent offenders — the strain could have long-term consequences. Defendants have the legal right to demand a speedy trial. Their attorneys may exercise that right if they believe delays caused by the strike could lead to dismissed cases or more lenient plea bargains.

Murder or rape trials are unlikely to be affected, as they are rightly treated as priorities (and thankfully remain relatively few — as of today, only eight homicides and 28 rapes have been reported in San Francisco). However, hundreds of drug-dealing, robbery, and assault cases could face time pressures if defense attorneys pursue this strategy — not to mention thousands of misdemeanor cases.

Our partial solution: Put court records, such as case files, online. This would save clerks time in the long run and make our courts more transparent. Other counties have done it — why not San Francisco?

“They Are Going to Release Potentially Dangerous and Violent Felons”

Speaking of defense attorneys, San Francisco’s Public Defender’s Office has effectively gone on a partial strike, arguing that it cannot handle its caseload.

The office began limiting new criminal cases in 2025, arguing that accepting all cases would push attorneys beyond ethical caseload limits and deny clients effective representation — despite its $58 million budget. Since May 2025, the office has refused approximately 10% of felony cases and 15% of misdemeanor cases on certain days, assigning them instead to private defense attorneys at a higher cost to the city.

Judges have recently ordered the office to resume accepting all new felony cases, and Public Defender Mano Raju may face contempt proceedings. The result is a standoff that risks releases or dismissals of criminal cases if defendants go without legal counsel.

District Attorney Brooke Jenkins previously warned, “They are going to release potentially dangerous and violent felons” back onto the streets.

And More Public Defender Pathos

On January 15, Stop Crime Action filed a Public Records Act request with the Public Defender’s Office seeking a list of attorneys “who currently practice before the San Francisco Superior Court.” The purpose of the request was to confidentially survey defense attorneys for their evaluations of more than 20 Superior Court judges as part of our 2024 Judge Report Card.

Amazingly, the Public Defender refused to provide a list of its attorney employees, stating ten days later that “we do not have a list of attorneys who practice in Superior Court.” If the office does not even maintain a list of its courtroom attorneys, it is little wonder it claims it cannot manage its caseload.

San Francisco: Among the Worst Counties in California

On March 2, the Chronicle reported that Governor Gavin Newsom criticized San Francisco for having one of the state’s worst records in implementing CARE Court.

CARE Court is designed to connect adults with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders — who face grave disability risks — to court-supervised health care, housing, and support services.

Although the statewide goal was to move 7,000 to 12,000 individuals into treatment, by last year, only 11 people had successfully completed the program in San Francisco, at a cost to taxpayers of $700,000 per person referred.

Recently, a homeless San Francisco man whose mother had filed a petition to place him into CARE Court was rejected — and he died of an overdose 10 days later.

Guess who served as Supervising Judge for San Francisco’s CARE Court during its key first year and beyond? Judge Michael Begert, whom Stop Crime Action identified in our previous Judge Report Card as one of two “FAILED” judges in 2023–24 for repeatedly failing to protect public safety. The Chronicle endorsed his March 2024 reelection.

Beat a Father Unconscious, Receive a Get-Out-of-Jail Card

District Attorney Brooke Jenkins on Friday condemned a San Francisco Superior Court judge for releasing seven men accused of robbing and beating a man unconscious while he walked with his fiancée and their infant near Pier 39 in February.

She stated in an interview that Judge Brian Hill’s decision to release the Sacramento-area defendants without bail or electronic monitoring was among the most “reckless decisions” she had ever seen.

Frank Noto is the president of Stop Crime Action.

March 2026