Via Wikimedia Commons
By Nevya Patel
SAN FRANCISCO, CA — A state appellate court finding this week that ruled unlawful delay in a misdemeanor trial in San Francisco County Superior Court could lead to a dismissal may result in more than 100 cases tossed, and possible reversals on appeal for accused parties deprived of their right to a speedy trial, according to a SF Public Defender press release.
“The First Appellate District opinion, issued Monday, held that the Superior Court had gone ‘beyond its proper judicial role’ and had ‘stepped into the shoes of the prosecution,’ and (the appeals court) ordered it to dismiss the case,” said the SFPD.
The public defenders added San Francisco prosecutors used the COVID-19 virus as an excuse for months of delay, although the lift on all pandemic-related emergency orders had already been issued.
According to the release, the Superior Court’s reopening after COVID-19 shutdowns in 2020 resulted in thousands of delays in individuals’ trials, leaving more than 240 in jail past their speedy trial deadline in “near-lockdown conditions.”
These delays met challenges from the San Francisco Public Defender’s office, several community organizations and public protests.
“The Superior Court’s use of COVID-19 as a reason to endlessly delay trials has always been unjust and harmful,” said Deputy Public Defender Oliver Kroll, who has worked on numerous petitions challenging the Superior Court’s trial backlog.
Kroll added, “The Court let usable courtrooms sit empty and prioritized civil lawsuits while our clients waited in jail with charges hanging over their heads. After four years, we’re thankful that common sense has finally prevailed.”
The SF Public Defender’s Office noted the appellate court said Monday’s ruling would be issued as the “published” version with the intent to create a “binding precedent,” obligating the SF Superior Court to follow the ruling in well over 100 similar cases.
While prosecutors initially sided with the Superior Court, agreeing in the viability of COVID-19 as a sufficient reason to delay criminal cases past trial deadlines, the public defenders wrote they “not only failed to satisfy their burden to demonstrate good cause for delay but actually concede there was no good cause.”
