SAN FRANCISCO — In the wake of a landmark California Supreme Court ruling that dramatically reshaped pretrial detention and bail practices, the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office has launched a new court watching project aimed at monitoring whether judges are complying with the decision and holding courts accountable when they do not.
The project sends interns into different court departments to observe hearings and track how arraignments and bail hearings are being conducted following the April 30, 2026, California Supreme Court decision in In re Kowalczyk.
The court watching project aims to collect data in real time, track trends and hold judges accountable for following the new ruling.
The project was created following the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in In re Kowalczyk, which states that judges do not have the power to detain defendants pending trial without bail in most cases and that, when bail is set, it must be reasonably attainable.
Previously, high bail amounts effectively prevented some defendants from being released before trial. The Kowalczyk decision requires that bail be reasonably attainable.
The decision is expected to reduce the number of people held in custody before trial and prevent financial circumstances from determining who remains incarcerated pending the resolution of a case.
The study seeks to determine whether the decision has led to more people being released from custody before trial, as well as to document the reasons judges use to justify holding people on bail.
Interns from the Public Defender’s Office visit court in shifts and take notes on hearings before reporting back to the office to compile data, with the goal of identifying judges who may not be following the decision.
When asked about the Kowalczyk decision, Sujung Kim, managing attorney of the Research Division within the Public Defender’s Office, described the ruling as an “absolute game changer” for the office’s clients and said it requires that a majority of public defender clients be released and better able to fight their cases.
However, Kim expressed doubt that the decision would automatically result in judges changing how they rule on custody status and bail amounts.
Kim pointed to a previous California Supreme Court ruling, In re Humphrey.
“Even five years ago after the Humphrey decision when judges were supposed to consider if clients could afford bail they ignored it. All they considered is if the client is a danger to public safety, and that was broadly construed … if the client had a history of not coming to court they kept them in [custody]. They did not pay mind to whether they should be released on affordable bail,” Kim explained.
Kim said she worries that despite Kowalczyk being clearer and more explicit than Humphrey, judges will continue to set unaffordable bail and create reasons to justify keeping people in custody.
“[Kowalczyk causes] a mind shift they [judges] have to make and we all have to make. I’m sure some judges are not happy with having to release clients. They are finding certain offenses to be violent to avoid having to release people and setting unaffordable bail.”
One of the remaining questions surrounding the Kowalczyk decision is what constitutes “reasonably attainable” bail.
That standard varies from person to person because courts must now consider a defendant’s financial circumstances.
The decision relies heavily on In re Humphrey (2021) when addressing the issue of affordable bail.
Humphrey held that the cash bail system criminalized poverty and was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses.
However, the decision does not mean bail will be set for the convenience of the defendant. Instead, courts must consider “a defendant’s financial situation and resources available to satisfy a monetary bail order.”
The decision seeks to assist people facing financial hardship, but the varying financial circumstances of accused persons make it difficult to establish a universal standard for what is reasonably attainable.
For example, defendants with no housing or employment are sometimes given bail set at $1. Without support or outside resources, however, they may still be unable to post that amount, which many attorneys argue amounts to unattainable bail.
One rationale some judges have used when setting high bail amounts is that defendants do not need to pay the full amount of bail to secure release.
Judge Cephus stated during a June 2 bail hearing, “Historically, bail has been set very high in this county because you only have to pay 10% or even less to a bail bond company.”
Following that comment, she held the accused on $100,000 bail, citing the accused’s family as another potential source of funds to post bail.
Many defense attorneys find that reasoning problematic because once the 10% bail bond payment is made, the money is gone even if the case is later dismissed. By contrast, defendants who pay the full bail amount directly receive most of it back if they make all required court appearances.
Kim said she has already seen an example of a judge refusing to set reasonable bail for a client.
She described a homeless individual who had not been employed for more than five years, had no money and had no friends or family who could loan him money.
Nevertheless, based on the fact that the client had panhandled within the previous month, the judge set bail at $100 despite the client having no money at the time.
Kim said her department filed a writ challenging the decision, and it was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Kim said the court watch program will be critical to ensuring judges comply with Kowalczyk.
“We must closely monitor and track what is going on in these hearings. The attorneys are so busy with all their cases. The research unit can’t be in courtrooms all the time. Interns [have] eyes and ears in the court room. They are hugely important and critical for implementing this new decision,” Kim explained.
Within a single week, the project recorded outcomes from more than 85 hearings, with additional information being collected daily.
The project is expected to expand next week through collaboration with San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, which are implementing similar programs.
The goal is to create a one-week snapshot of the post-Kowalczyk legal landscape and identify cases in which the new ruling is not being followed.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
