SAN FRANCISCO — A San Francisco Superior Court judge declined Thursday to reduce felony vandalism charges against two people accused of spray-painting security cameras during the Trans Pride Parade, despite defense claims the case was substantially overcharged and involved only minor, temporary damage.
Prior to the July 2 arraignment, members of the transgender community gathered outside the San Francisco Superior Court to support the two people accused of felony vandalism during the Trans Pride Parade on June 26.
Various members of the transgender community spoke during the rally about the issues their community faces and how transgender people tend to be disproportionately affected by issues such as Flock cameras and overcharging by the District Attorney’s Office.
Deputy Public Defenders Kelsey Ryburn and Jess McPeake also spoke at the rally, as they were representing one of the accused.
After the rally, supporters filled the courtroom, where Judge John Echeverria presided over the arraignment.
The accused are two transgender women, each charged with eight counts of felony vandalism for allegedly spray-painting transgender flag colors — pink, white and blue — onto security cameras at two buildings using water guns during the Trans Pride rally last Friday. The two accused are charged as co-defendants in the case and are represented by Deputy Public Defender Kelsey Ryburn and Conflict Defense Attorney Jeff Wozniak.
Ryburn began by telling the court she would be making a demurrer motion, arguing that the alleged acts do not constitute a crime. She stated that the accused used water-soluble paint that easily washed off and caused no actual damage to the cameras.
Judge Echeverria denied the demurrer motion, and Ryburn followed by stating she would also file a Penal Code section 17(b) motion to reduce the charges from felonies to misdemeanors, arguing the case was “clearly and substantially overcharged.”
Under California Penal Code section 594, felony vandalism requires property damage costing $400 or more to repair. However, according to Ryburn, the cost to either clean or replace the cameras would be no more than $290, meaning the alleged conduct would meet only the standard for misdemeanor vandalism.
“Why is a woman with no record facing 8 felonies and prison,” Ryburn said, arguing once again that the case was grossly overcharged, largely because the accused is a transgender woman.
Conflict Defense Attorney Jeff Wozniak, who represents the other accused, joined Ryburn in her Section 17(b) motion to reduce the felony charges to misdemeanors, echoing many of the same arguments.
Ryburn argued that if financial restitution were the issue in the case, charging the counts as misdemeanors would still allow the accused to be held liable for any damages, saying it “does not reduce possibility of accountability and responsibility.”
Ryburn also emphasized the amount of community support in the courtroom, which was filled with family members and supporters. Judge Echeverria stressed that the court “[doesn’t] take public opinion polls,” but acknowledged community support could be relevant and asked the defense to explain the significance of its argument.
Ryburn explained that the strong community turnout demonstrated the accused were beloved members of their community and were taking the case very seriously.
Wozniak again joined in making the same arguments for his client, telling Judge Echeverria, “The case is overcharged, you have the power to correct that,” adding that the judge also had the authority to send a message about what he described as the District Attorney’s Office’s pattern of overcharging.
Judge Echeverria responded that if he were to grant the motion, it would not be to send a message or make any political statement, but would instead be based solely on the facts before the court.
Echeverria said he was “mostly convinced” by the defense arguments but wanted to hear Deputy District Attorney Max Draskovich’s opposition to the motion.
Draskovich argued that Ryburn had mischaracterized the damages and maintained there was significant damage not only to the security cameras but also to a restaurant because of the paint.
Echeverria stated he was not fully convinced the paint was anything more than water-soluble paint that should be easy to wash off.
Draskovich further argued that the cameras were not functional and that the judge should follow common practice by waiting until the preliminary hearing to hear additional evidence before ruling on the Section 17(b) motion.
Ryburn clarified that the cameras themselves were not actually damaged but were considered inoperable only because paint covered the domes and needed to be washed off. She maintained that the camera mechanisms themselves were unharmed.
Draskovich disagreed, maintaining that the cameras, which are housed inside tinted black domes, were damaged by the paint and would likely need to be replaced, making the cost greater than simply cleaning the domes.
Judge Echeverria stated there “appears to be an evidentiary dispute,” adding that he “[has] some serious questions about the evidence produced” regarding whether any significant damage was done to the cameras.
“The Court has no reason to discredit the character of the defendants,” Echeverria said, acknowledging the strong community turnout was significant.
Echeverria denied the motion without prejudice, indicating it could be granted at the preliminary hearing but stating he wanted to examine additional evidence before making a final ruling.
Echeverria also stated that even if the damages exceed $400, he is still considering reducing the charges to misdemeanors.
Ryburn asked the court to formally arraign the accused and read all charges against them.
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.
