SAN FRANCISCO — A San Francisco Superior Court judge held the accused to answer Monday on charges of attempted mayhem and using violence against a deputy sheriff, despite defense arguments that the injuries were not permanent and prosecutors failed to establish the specific intent required under California law.
During a preliminary hearing July 13 in Department 11 of the San Francisco Superior Court, Judge Matthew Kahn held the accused to answer on two felony charges despite arguments from Deputy Public Defender Danielle Craig that the accused’s actions did not rise to the severe level required under the statutory language of the charges.
The accused was charged with attempted mayhem and using violence against a deputy sheriff.
According to the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Frank Chwin of County Jail 3, the alleged incident occurred May 2, 2026, at about 9:30 a.m. Chwin was on duty in County Jail 3 and was called to the accused’s cell to transfer the accused to another cell.
Upon arriving at the accused’s cell, Chwin testified that the accused was “pacing around, yelling things, saying that he would hurt anyone who went into that cell.”
Chwin first described the accused as being in a “belated stance.” Upon further questioning, Chwin clarified that the accused had his “hands up, ready to fight.”
“Were [the accused’s] fists clenched and raised?” Deputy District Attorney Austin Weis asked.
“Yes,” Chwin answered.
After other deputies unlocked and opened the cell door, Chwin said, “I immediately took [the accused] down to the ground,” adding that he had the accused pinned with his full body weight.
While on the floor, Chwin testified that the accused was “clawing at my face, right eye, neck, and cheek.”
“Did he actually scratch your eye?” Weis asked.
“He actually got my right eye,” Chwin responded.
Chwin continued explaining that he was taken to the emergency room, where he was treated for “lacerations to the face, an abrasion to the right cornea, scratches to the neck, and a contusion in the back of the head.”
Chwin noted that he experienced blurriness in his right eye.
“How long did that blurriness last?” Weis asked.
Chwin responded that his eye was blurry for about one week after the incident.
On cross-examination, Craig asked Chwin whether he was trained in de-escalation tactics.
Chwin responded that de-escalation tactics were covered in the general Junior Training Officer program all officers complete. However, he could not recall the specific training or the number of hours of training he had received.
Craig then asked Chwin about the accused’s cell.
“Is it true that [the accused] was held alone?” Craig asked.
Chwin responded in the affirmative.
“Is it true that [the accused] couldn’t open the door himself?” Craig asked.
“Yes,” Chwin responded.
“And there were no individuals in proximity to [the accused]?” Craig asked.
“No, there were not,” Chwin responded.
“So he was only potentially a threat to himself, correct?” Craig asked.
“Yes,” Chwin responded.
Craig then clarified that when the cell door was being opened, Chwin was behind the officers who were opening and unlocking the door.
“They were closer to the door that kept you and [the accused] separated?” Craig asked.
“Yes,” Chwin responded.
Craig then questioned Chwin about the statements the accused made that day.
Craig said the accused was “yelling that you were trying to rape him,” to which Chwin confirmed, “I believe he said something along the lines of that.”
Chwin confirmed that the accused had made several “nonsensical statements that day,” including accusing Chwin of “being a homosexual.”
After the cell door was opened, “You right away lunged at [the accused] and pinned him to the ground?” Craig asked.
“Yes, the thing I had to do was get control of him,” Chwin responded.
“He never once took a step toward you?” Craig asked.
Chwin answered in the affirmative.
Once pinned down, Chwin testified that the accused was “just resisting” and “grabbing anything he could.”
Craig then questioned Chwin about his injuries.
Craig confirmed that in a previous interview, Chwin admitted that he “couldn’t say if the contusion on the back of the head was caused by [the accused].”
Chwin also confirmed that he had not suffered any permanent impairment to his eyes and that, as of the day of the hearing, he could see out of both eyes.
After Chwin was dismissed, Judge Kahn told Craig that the court was inclined to hold the accused to answer on both felony counts.
Craig responded that, because attempted mayhem is a specific-intent offense, the People “have to prove that [the accused] had the intent to commit the crime.”
Craig argued that because the accused had not caused Chwin permanent eye damage, the results of the accused’s actions did not “rise to the level of the statutory language” of the Penal Code.
Craig further argued that the damage to Chwin’s eye did not amount to the “puts out an eye” language contained in the Penal Code.
Judge Kahn reasoned that the intent behind the injuries outweighed the actual results of the injuries for purposes of the preliminary hearing.
Ultimately, Judge Kahn held that the “People have presented enough evidence” and that “[the accused] will be held to answer on both counts.”
The accused’s arraignment is scheduled for July 27, 2026, in Department 22 of the San Francisco Superior Court.
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.
