San Francisco Superior Court dismissed 70 misdemeanor cases last week because they had taken too long to go to trial.

The dismissals came about a month after an appellate court ruled that a San Francisco Superior Court judge abused his discretion in March when he cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason to deny a motion to dismiss a case that had taken two-and-a-half years to go to trial.

Under California law, a person accused of a misdemeanor has the right to request a trial within 45 days of being charged. Numerous and extensive delays were granted during the COVID-19 emergency, which was formally ended by the governor in February 2023 and by President Joe Biden in April of that year.

The appellate court judges said there were potentially hundreds of other cases that might have to be dismissed on the grounds that they violated a defendant’s right to a speedy trial.

The delays came as some courtrooms sat empty and judges took vacations, according to the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, which represented 69 of the defendants.

Trials anything but speedy

The ruling centered on a legal challenge brought by a woman who was accused of driving under the influence in San Francisco in October 2021. Her trial still hadn’t begun by March 2024, despite invoking her right to a speedy trial in February 2023.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Victor Hwang denied the defendant’s petition to dismiss the case on speedy trial grounds, citing disruptions caused by the pandemic.

But prosecutors said that they would not present evidence that another delay was warranted, leaving the judge to effectively fill in the blanks himself to justify his ruling.

The court “went beyond its proper judicial role, stepped into the shoes of the prosecution, and attempted to satisfy the People’s evidentiary burden to show good cause for delay,” the panel of three appellate judges found.

The appellate court noted that prosecutors engaged in an unusual method of backing out of the case by not supporting the judge’s ruling to delay it, but likewise did not ever drop the charges until ordered to do so.

“It should be clear from the charges themselves — vehicular manslaughter, sexual battery, etc. — whether a case is more serious. We should not need to explain that to an experienced judge.” Brooke Jenkins, San Francisco District Attorney

“Instead, the People’s approach effectively amounts to an abandonment of the prosecution because it compels dismissal of this action and potentially hundreds of other misdemeanor cases,” the appellate panel wrote.

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins blamed the court for the delays that forced the dismissals. She said in a statement that the court had wrongfully put the burden of prioritizing certain cases on prosecutors.

“It should be clear from the charges themselves — vehicular manslaughter, sexual battery, etc. — whether a case is more serious,” Jenkins said. “We should not need to explain that to an experienced judge.”

Neither Jenkins nor a spokesperson for her office explained why the cases were still being pursued past their constitutional deadlines.

A spokesperson for the Superior Courts said that the backlog of misdemeanor cases had shrunk by nearly 80% since June 2023.

Procedures under review

Presiding Judge Anne-Christine Massullo said in a statement that the court would review the 70 cases that were dismissed to better understand why they were delayed.

“I respect District Attorney Jenkins, her office, and the work they do,” Massullo said. “If there are serious misdemeanor cases that need the Court’s attention, she should make sure her line attorneys alert Department 17 (Misdemeanor Master Calendar department) that a case needs a trial department. If the defense is ready to proceed, we will find a courtroom for the trial,” she said.

The Public Defender’s Office said the court did the right thing in dismissing the cases on constitutional grounds but blasted the lengthy delays.

“These trial delays have greatly disrupted our clients’ lives and livelihoods,” said Deputy Public Defender Andrea Lindsay.

“Many people have been subjected to prolonged pretrial conditions, like wearing electronic ankle monitors, and have been made to attend multiple court dates — requiring time off from work or school as well as childcare and transportation — only to be denied their rights and faced with more delays,” Lindsay said.

The case at the center of the appeal, Mendoza v. Superior Court of San Francisco, was delayed by the court eight times. COVID-19 was often cited as a justifiable “good cause,” but other delays were made without explanation or because of a lack of available courtrooms, the public defender’s office said.

The lack of available courtrooms brought up another sore point between the DA’s Office and the Superior Courts, which blamed each other for the slow pace of starting trials.

Both the Public Defender’s Office and the DA’s Office faulted the court for not opening civil courtrooms sooner and more extensively. They also objected to the court hearing civil cases while the backlog of criminal cases grew.

“When the court finally did resume misdemeanor trials, only two courtrooms were opened at 400 McAllister despite hundreds of misdemeanor cases being set for trial, and even still, criminal trials continued to be delayed by the Court,” Jenkins said.

There remained a backlog of 358 misdemeanor cases as of March, according to the appellate court.