SAN FRANCISCO, CA – San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins has recently taken to social media posts and other online forums to express her disapproval of certain judicial decisions within California’s Criminal Superior Courts, especially actions by judges offering what she has deemed as “lenient” sentence and charge reductions, according to sources such as ABC News and Mission Local.
Despite active judges being forbidden to respond to DA Jenkins’ criticism under the judicial canon of ethics, retired judges and attorneys are beginning to speak out regarding DA Jenkins’s “cheap political” conduct, as noted by a retired San Francisco judge in her remarks to the SF Chronicle.
DA Jenkins, who was sworn in as San Francisco’s 31st District Attorney on Jan. 8, 2023, has embraced a “get tough agenda” on crime, according to Mission Local.
Jenkins has now been labeled as being the most “outspoken” DA that San Francisco has ever had after multiple incidents of Jenkins taking to social media to publicly criticize judges for allowing criminals to “use this courthouse as a revolving door,” according to the SF Chronicle.
Past district attorneys of San Francisco, such as Chesa Boudin who had a progressive prosecution approach, did not publicly criticize the courts and judicial officers for their decisions with sentencing and choices about diversion programs.
Instead, past SF district attorneys, including Boudin and others, have kept any criticism of judicial decisions behind closed doors and have broached criticism through proper legal channels that are not as public as social media.
Although DA Jenkins’ stance about being tough on crime is not unusual for district attorneys in large cities, what is unusual and makes Jenkins particularly “outspoken” is her vocality about framing the judiciary and specific judges in her social media comments.
Sources such as the SFist have continually spoken out saying that DA Jenkins is “overstepping” in her targeted media comments.
Other critics of DA Jenkins have asserted that DA Jenkins’ public criticism of court officials may point to a larger effort in trying to discredit the active judicial officers before 2025’s local trial court judicial elections in an attempt to prevent retention of more “lenient” judges.
In an X statement from Jan. 31, 2025, DA Jenkins wrote, “This week a felony case for petty theft with two or more prior convictions (CRI 25001678) was reduced to a misdemeanor by Judge Gerardo Sandoval at arraignment over our objections and against the clear will of the voters.”
This statement from DA Jenkins came after Judge Sandoval reduced 29-year-old Willie Johnson’s felony charge for stealing rolls of toilet paper from a Walgreens store in Noe Valley to a misdemeanor charge, according to Mission Local.
Johnson, an unhoused Black man suffering from mental illness and who was actively participating in mental health diversion services at the time of the arrest, had several prior misdemeanors from 2018 and 2019 as reported on by Mission Local—for petty theft, commercial shoplifting and first-degree robbery.
Even though the amount of toilet paper Johnson was found with would normally only be charged as a misdemeanor under California’s Penal Code, Prop. 36 allowed DA Jenkins’ office to charge Johnson with a felony, since the proposition “allows for felony charges in cases of theft under $950 if the (accused) has two prior drug or theft convictions,” wrote Mission Local.
However, during court proceedings and after hearing arguments from Johnson’s defense attorney, Judge Sandoval conceded defense arguments and reduced Johnson’s felony charge to a petty theft misdemeanor, therefore reducing Johnson’s potential sentence from three years to just one year in prison.
In another X post, DA Jenkins initially wrote, “Since the passage of Prop. 36 my office has been working to implement the will of the people and filed dozens of cases using the new tools available to us to make our city safer and hold those who habitually break our laws accountable.”
DA Jenkins also followed up her previous statement with a more targeted attack on Judge Sandoval’s decision, posting another statement asserting, “He (Judge Sandoval) didn’t even allow a hearing on the evidence in the case.
“This behavior epitomizes the broken laissez-faire culture at the Hall of Justice that erodes the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system and emboldens criminals.”
Many judges, including Sandoval, offer leniency, reduced sentences, and diversion program options because they recognize that many accused people suffer from mental health issues and see these alternative options to incarceration as benefitting the accused and the community long term.
In simple terms, many judges recognize the circumstances an accused is facing and choose to prioritize treatment over punitive measures.
Recent data from a case study of Sacramento County noted the success of diversion programs in reducing recidivism and re-offense rates, showing participants in Sacramento’s Mental Health Treatment Court were “25 percent less likely to be arrested and 75 percent less likely to be hospitalized” than those who did not participate in diversion programs.
DA Jenkins, however, notoriously opposes these diversion and restorative justice programs, oftentimes citing people accused of crimes as a threat to public safety.
“She has criticized and diminished the use of diversion programs that offer (those) accused of selling drugs rehabilitation, counseling and training rather than jail sentences,” the SF Public Press notes, highlighting how DA Jenkins’ opposition to diversion programs alternately undermines public safety instead of protecting it.
Public criticism of judicial decisions also arose from DA Jenkins in the wake of 25-year-old Gerardo Saavedra’s five counts of armed robbery in which Judge Brian Ferrall gave Saavedra a four year and eight month jail sentence after the prosecution asked for a 23-year sentence and the probation department recommended a 15-year sentence, according to ABC.
Public Defender Elizabeth Camacho noted to the DA’s office that Saavedra had no prior convictions or record and was committing the robbery under “duress” —meaning that another actor was manipulating Saavedra against his free will into committing the robberies—and was wielding a “ghost gun,” a privately made firearm that is untraceable to law enforcement, according to BradyUnited.
Additionally, Camacho made clear to the court that on the night of the incident, Saavedra wielded the ghost gun unloaded, with the magazine and bullets in his jacket pocket, according to ABC.
Despite the defense arguments and Judge Ferrall granting a reduced sentence, DA Jenkins continued to assert on social media “the courts are signaling that there’s not much value being placed on even violent crime in San Francisco. And so that serves as a lack of an incentive for people not to come here and commit those acts.”
Yet, Judge Sandoval is not the only target of DA Jenkins’ criticism as sources such as Mission Local note. DA Jenkins has also publicly called out others via social media like Judges Michael Begert and Patrick Thompson for their “catch and release philosophy.”
DA Jenkins has even participated in March 2024 demonstrations opposing the sentencing of Daniel Cauich, who received five years of probation from Judge Kay Tesnin after pleading guilty to stabbing an elderly woman, as reported by the Mission Local.
Amidst DA Jenkins’ continued statements disagreeing with judicial decisions on social media, attorneys have begun to speak out about DA Jenkins’ conduct to media sources.
Many have expressed concerns that DA Jenkins is breaching an ethical boundary and committing ethics violations by publicly calling out judges versus how disagreements between the DA’s office and the judiciary and judges were handled in the past – through professional and legal channels.
“Jenkins’ job is to advocate for her position — but she should keep it in court,” said one unnamed attorney, according to Mission Local.
Ellen Chaitin, a San Francisco Superior Court judge who worked in the criminal department for over two decades, writes Mission Local, is no longer prohibited from responding to DA Jenkins’ criticism of judges and judicial decisions since she has retired.
Among her various remarks about DA Jenkins’ “cheap” political conduct, Chaitin concluded her remarks to Mission Local by stating, “In my time with the courts as a lawyer and judge, I have never witnessed more attacks against the independence of the judiciary by the DA’s office.”
San Francisco is not unfamiliar with controversy around how crime of all levels is handled and prosecuted, but DA Jenkins’ conduct raises the question of how her criticism of the judiciary and her adamance about cracking down on crime will affect San Francisco’s crime policies.
Will the judiciary cave into the pressure to crack down on crime that Jenkins is exerting via public media?
Will San Francisco’s crime policies become more punitive or will public dissatisfaction with DA Jenkins’ conduct expressed through local news and citizen-run media sources be the push that San Francisco has needed to drive more support for various mental health, substance use, and military diversion programs?
So far, DA Jenkins’ conduct has not reaped as much media attention as when past SF DA Boudin faced mounting criticism for his progressive prosecution policies via social media where proponents of Boudin’s recall election spent over $7 million “blasting that message to voters in San Francisco throughout the course of the campaign,” as reported on by CBS.
Despite a handful of known media outlets such as the SF Chronicle, CBS, and ABC San Francisco providing some coverage of DA Jenkins’ questionable conduct, widespread news coverage of DA Jenkins’ social media conduct has yet to leach into the larger, mainstream media news cycle and coverage.
In fact, most coverage on DA Jenkins’ conduct has been propelled far more in the local media scope by smaller, independent news sources such as Mission Local, Crime and Consequences Blog and the SFist.
Unsurprisingly, it seems independent news outlets and local coverage of DA Jenkins’ conduct will likely prove crucial in holding DA Jenkins accountable for her actions and will be pivotal in what criminal justice policies and reform efforts develop in San Francisco’s future.
