SAN FRANCISCO — Judge Michael Kahn addressed two separate requests for release under the California Supreme Court’s recent In re Kowalczyk decision Tuesday in San Francisco Superior Court, with one defendant remaining in custody pending a future bail hearing and another ordered released under electronic monitoring.
In the first case, Deputy Public Defender Eden Schwartz sought her client’s release under Kowalczyk, arguing that “$100 bail was what her client could reasonably afford.”
Assistant District Attorney Austin Weis argued that the case did not fall under the Kowalczyk standard. He noted that the accused had multiple warrants and a history of failing to appear in court. Weis further argued that there was “no less restrictive means” available to ensure both public safety and the accused’s return to court.
Judge Kahn agreed that there was no less restrictive alternative to monetary bail in the case and ruled that bail should be set according to the county schedule. He set bail at $25,000 on charges five, six, seven and eight.
The judge scheduled a status hearing for July 7.
Schwartz responded that it was her intention to demonstrate that the amount imposed was unaffordable for her client. Judge Kahn subsequently set a Kowalczyk bail hearing for July 7 as well.
In a second case later in the calendar involving the same attorneys, Schwartz again sought release under Kowalczyk. She argued that her client had been remanded into custody because of a failure to appear and emphasized that he had stable housing in Antioch with family members.
Weis opposed release, noting that the accused had previously been released on ACM and was out of custody before the failure to appear. He also pointed to what he described as the serious nature of the alleged offense, stating that the accused had punched the victim and that multiple teeth had been knocked out. Weis asked that the accused remain remanded in custody.
Schwartz countered that another judge had already ruled against pretrial detention and ordered her client’s release. She noted that a criminal protective order remained in place and argued there was no risk to public safety, emphasizing that there had been no additional violence during the several months her client had been out of custody.
Judge Kahn observed that detention had previously been denied by the original judge and found that there were no changed circumstances warranting a different outcome.
He concluded that electronic monitoring would be sufficient both to protect the public and to ensure the accused’s appearance in court and ordered the accused released under electronic monitoring conditions.
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.
