Reader · no content
No body text on file.
Open the original to read the full piece.
SF Courts Won't Show Their Work
Brief
San Francisco Superior Court has effectively stopped reporting criminal-disposition data to the California Judicial Council since 2020, producing an 'incomplete' 2024 statewide statistics file and a reported FY2023–24 clearance rate of just 32% (52nd of 56 counties). At the same time, statewide data show SF criminal filings dropped 35% from 2019–2024, even as the Public Defender’s budget grew roughly 27% (from $41M to $52M, moving toward $57.6M) after Manohar Raju told supervisors of a 31% surge. Chronic continuances and bench behavior have produced high-rate attrition: 70 misdemeanor dismissals on August 15, 2024, only 55 jury-trial resolutions in the period, and long-delayed high-profile cases. The court cites a 2022 case-management system rollout for reporting failures; critics argue the gap reflects incentives to avoid accountability, while enforcement options from the Judicial Council remain limited to public comment.
Why it matters
San Francisco Superior Court has not submitted any criminal disposition/clearance data to the California Judicial Council since 2020 (five years), producing an 'incomplete' 2024 Court Statistics Report and a reported FY2023–24 clearance rate of 32% (ranked 52/56 counties).
Key details
- California court data show San Francisco criminal filings fell 35% from 2019–2024, even as the San Francisco Public Defender’s budget rose ~27% (from $41M to $52M, planned to reach $57.6M); Public Defender Manohar Raju told supervisors of a claimed 31% caseload surge that state records contradict.
- Delay-driven dismissals and scarce trials: 70 misdemeanor cases were dismissed on August 15, 2024 due to delays; the court recorded only 55 jury-trial resolutions in the period; SF averages ~1 jury trial per judge versus Alameda’s 11 per judge.
- Court administration blames a 2022 case-management system rollout for the missing reports; Presiding Judge Rochelle C. East (elected 2024) oversees the blackout, while the Judicial Council’s public-comment process remains the primary enforcement mechanism.