By Rory Fleming
On September 29, Judge Bruce Chan, a former public defender, seemingly crushed San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, complaining that there is “constant turnover” and “constant managerial reorganization,” and that he has seen several “instances where the fundamentals of competent, professional prosecution have not occurred.”
The criticism was harder to wave away for progressives because Chan is a former public defender, not some cowboy hat-wearing, gun-in-the-holster former prosecutor. Public defender glamorization is becoming more common on the left, though one recent study found that the federal judge with the most racist track record in America once served as a public defender in Philadelphia.
Yet, for a number of key reasons, virtually major DA offices suffer from some degree of dysfunction.
For one, no other country today handles the bulk of its prosecution service through a localized system; prosecutors instead benefit from the resources and oversight that a national governmental system provides.
Also, as a Harvard Law Review article sagely noted, line prosecutor actions are not constantly surveilled, thus there is “significant potential for noncompliance from those on the lower rungs of the hierarchy due to a lack of buy-in to the goals of the head prosecutor.” Especially urban DA offices are too large for the top person to know what every deputy is doing at all times, since there are many hundreds of them.
The RAND Corporation has discussed how “high caseloads, limited resources, and higher salaries from private firms or larger agencies, lead to burnout and a high turnover rate.” Law school debt is often six figures, yet prosecutors in some big cities, like Miami, earn as low as $52,000. Assuming high turnover signals problems with a DA or his administration is fallacious.
However, we know most about the managerial problems in DA’s offices managed by progressives because of the mainstream press bias against progressive DAs. Short of a scandal with the scope of the “snitch scandal” in Orange County, where constitutional rights were allegedly flouted in a large number of cases over a course of several years (if not decades), major media outlets rarely direct serious attention to the ways in which moderate or conservative DAs fail the public.
For example, it took a governmental audit fourteen years after the California District Attorneys Association first started collecting extra funds for environmental and worker safety cases for a newspaper in the state to cover that organization’s mishandling of the money.
That disinterest in DA mismanagement issues also extends to personnel issues.
Michael Ramos, the DA of San Bernardino County from 2002 to 2019, was sued for allegedly sexually harassing and assaulting the secretary of his office’s Sexually Violent Predator Unit for years, then retaliating against her at work. While he lost re-election in 2018, he somehow evaded #MeToo-level scrutiny, despite the lawsuit predating his tenure as the President of the National District Attorneys Association. Even now, he sits on the board of the California Crime Victims Alliance.
In 2011, former Deputy District Attorney Christine Trevino sent an email to at least 50 employees of the San Diego County DA’s office titled “My Death.” She accused then-DA Bonnie Dumanis’s administration of unfairly siding with another staffer in a dispute, and speculated Dumanis and others would try to “cover up” her impending death as a mental health issue afterward. She ended the email by stating, “YOUR administration is to blame!” and she shot herself during a traffic stop the next day. To date, no one knows what transpired to trigger Trevino’s suicide, and whether Dumanis’s protege, current DA Summer Stephan, had anything to do with it. Local reporting left out the salient details, and the office has refused to answer public records inquiries into the matter.
On one level, it is not surprising that Judge Chan would join the hysterical pile-on against DA Boudin. He is a Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointee who also served as the Chief Counsel of the California State Assembly’s Committee on Public Safety from 2000 to 2004, the height of mass incarceration. That’s a far cry from the four San Francisco public defenders who challenged Schwarzenegger judges in 2018 as a way to “shake up the courts.”
Rory Fleming is a writer and licensed attorney.
I have to agree with what Judge Chan said:
How do you know Keith – have you actually been in the courts in San Francisco or the DA’s office to see it?
One thing I would point out as someone who has – the last people on this planet that should be complaining about how the DA’s office is running their office are San Francisco Judge’s.
We spent so much time trying to gain access to the courts – and SF (and LA for that matter) can’t figure out how to stream video? Really. So Yolo and Sacramento and a whole host of other counties have done it without a hitch, but San Francisco in the heart of the tech capital can’t? Who is that on the courts. Who oversees the local court? The judges.
Then you have the issue of people spending 200 days without trial.
https://davisvanguard.org/2021/09/sf-public-defenders-protest-against-lack-of-court-hearings-conditions-for-clients/
“To illustrate the problem, Mano Raju noted that someone they represent had a court hearing last week, and he came to court thinking that this is the last day that he can be in a hearing before being sent out to a trial court. “They put the case over,” Raju said. “They didn’t put it over a couple of days. They didn’t put the case over a couple of weeks. Put the case over to February of 2022, months past the last day. Justice delayed is justice denied.””
THat’s not on the DA, that’s on the judge and the courts.
Sorry, but there are lots of problems in San Francisco and elsewhere with the courts and how things are going during COVID, but the judges in San Francisco bear an enormous amount of the blame from what I have seen first hand.
I see a lot of SF court time in your future, KO 😉
Is this kind of like not being able to comment on the SF courts because I don’t live there? You know, like not commenting on Davis housing policies because one lives in Woodland?
Normally, that type of argument is only presented by elite professionals who want to keep others out “their town”. 🙂
Especially any “low-life” Woodlanders, despite the city itself being much more diverse. (Or, maybe because of it?)
To summarize your tepid defense of Chesa Boudin: 1) other DA offices are poorly managed, 2) it’s a hard job with poorly paid staff, 3) the media is biased against progressive prosecutors, and 4) Judge Chan favors mass incarceration. My response is that your first two points suggest we should lower our expectations. Your last two points suggest that the media and judges are biased against Chesa, which I don’t think is true.
Exactly, I found the article to be more finger pointing than actually a defense of Chan’s allegations against Boudin’s DA Dept.
I think the point was to put the criticism into better perspective – why is Boudin getting singled out when the entire system is performing very badly in San Francisco.
Oh look something else that’s got nothing to do with the DA.
Just a suggestion (from someone with only a mild/passing interest in this issue/article):
Talking about “what else” is wrong sounds a lot more like a deflection than actually addressing what the judge claims.
Same is true regarding focusing on the judge, the media, or any other nonsense. Similar to a “fake news” type of claim.
Similar to using terms like “Oh look”
I suspect that few (outside of those already intimately involved in advocacy) knew of the judge’s complaints in the first place.
Per the article above, I see them referenced via someone else’s Twitter account. Not sure where else they appeared, or the significance thereof.
Barely even care. But I doubt that whatever this judge says has much influence on the outcome of the expected recall vote, regardless.
And the Vanguard article has even less influence than that. Hell, the Vanguard couldn’t even get their own preferred candidate elected to DA in Yolo County, let alone having much influence in San Francisco.
In fact, it kind of seems like David has given up on unseating Reisig.
Ron – As I pointed out in my other comment, my complaint is that the judge singled out one individual when there is a whole host of things that are wrong and it’s not clear that biggest problem is the individual he singled out rather than he and his other judges that collectively make up the court. In addition, you are not required to comment on topics that you barely care about.
Personally, I would have started out by introducing what the judge said, and addressing that. Or, maybe it’s not even newsworthy in the first place. Perhaps by bringing it up, you’re actually harming your cause. (But again, this assumes that anyone “on the fence” regarding Boudin is going to be influenced by what is said on here – if they’re even aware of this blog at all.)
It’s not likely that many of your readers are following this as closely as those you’re involved with are. Other than your team of advocates.
And yet, you pretty much skimmed over that, and introduced a whole bunch of other issues in defense (which most of your readers probably aren’t familiar with, either).
Reminds me of how “Stewie” (from Family Guy) sometimes gets into arguments with some other version of himself. Usually overheard by Brian, who then asks what the heck is going on.
If you look at my first comment, you will notice something besides the fact I didn’t write this article – my approach would have been different. I tried to provide context to what is happening in San Francisco in that comment. I would also point out that the people who comment on here are not necessarily reflective of who the readers are or who the target audience is. Again, there is no requirement that you respond to an article, particularly if you admit that you pretty much skimmed it and you aren’t familiar with what is happening in the SF courts.
Life hack pro tip
If one clicks on the link:
That can’t be, since the claim is that the “system” is racist – not individuals. And certainly not white individuals.
Of course, we all know that Republicans are, so that’s not in question. (Or at least, that’s what’s implied.)
Darn it – I’d guess this guy isn’t white. But, I’ll probably associate whiteness (and all that implies) with him as a result of the article, anyway.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
And from another link in the article (very first sentence). Maybe they should all be checked?
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2020/08/25/black-prosecutors-11-ideas-393577
So, we’re at least back to “systemic” racism, here. Taking the blame out of white people (directly) again, for the moment.
Whatever one thinks of the citation, it should at least be noted that there’s some duplicity within that sentence.
Every time I start digging into one of these articles, I feel like watching a Matt Walsh video afterward. At least the guy has a sense of humor.
Seems strange, but I feel like the Vanguard itself is pushing me further “right” with almost every article. Never thought of myself that way, before.
Of course, the Vanguard has aligned with the right regarding development issues.
Is it possible that I pretty much disagree with almost everything the Vanguard promotes at this point? And that I view everything it promotes as harmful?
So, how is it that the Vanguard ran an article the other day, essentially claiming that crime is down because of Boudin?
(Leaving aside for the moment – the separate issue regarding the impact of the shutdowns/pandemic.)
Personally, I’d like to hear Boudin’s views regarding what his parents did, and how that impacted his decision to become a “reform” prosecutor.
Personally, I think I’d be ashamed of my parents in that scenario, and would do everything possible to disassociate myself and condemn their actions.
But it seems to have driven Boudin in an opposite direction from what one might expect.
Has he ever addressed this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin
(Ah – I see that he was raised by other former members of the Weather Underground. So, maybe that explains it.)
But truth be told, I’d blame the result on the voters of San Francisco (so far, at least). Though that city has a certain reputation, one would think that it doesn’t extend as far out as to elect Boudin in the first place. After all, that city is dominated by some powerful business interests, as well. And business interests tend to not be radicals, to say the least. (Which might explain how Wiener is supported, but not Boudin.)
Did only the anarchists vote on that day?
As someone who follows reform DAs across the country – what is it about Boudin that you find different from say any host of other reform DA’s elected in dozens of counties across the country?
I don’t follow them across the country. Nor do I know the personal background of other reform DAs.
However, Boudin has made some comments/presentations that seem to (at the least) avoid and deflect responsibility for the duties of his position. I don’t know what the others have said.
An example of this is the politicizing of attacks on Asians.
Since he is within the region (and you and other sources cover him extensively), I’m more familiar with him than I am regarding the others.
And part of my “suspicion” regarding Boudin is due to the city of San Francisco, itself. It is dominated by leftist views, despite its capitalistic business interests (and some very wealthy individuals, to boot).
But your not following the other prosecutors didn’t stop you from saying: “I’d blame the result on the voters of San Francisco (so far, at least). Though that city has a certain reputation, one would think that it doesn’t extend as far out as to elect Boudin in the first place.”
I just don’t see the policies of Boudin as being that out of step with most of the other reform prosecutors in the country. That’s not an insubstantial number of people when you consider that almost all of the major metro areas are not represented by reform DAs who have enacted similar policies to Boudin. By sense, SF is not an outlier.
Moreover, you cite “the politicizing of attacks on Asians” – that’s national. How is Boudin different in this respect from what’s happening at a national level?
It’s not really worth having a 50 comment debate over it, I just think that Chesa is a magnet largely because of his parents rather than because of anything he did. He’s certainly no different in policies from a whole host of other DAs that are flying below the surface mostly.
Regarding the politicizing of the attacks on Asians, the fact that it also happens on a national level is not a valid reason to do it on a local level.
Boudin is responsible for making decisions regarding hate crime charges. So, when he starts blaming Trump and/or implies that white supremacy is behind it, he’s not doing his job and is instead conducting a political campaign.
As a side note, I would think that it’s within the realm of possibility that some Asian victims of hate crimes are Trump supporters. How would they receive Boudin’s message – especially if he decided not to pursue hate crime charges in regard to their victimization?
https://davisvanguard.org/2021/03/sf-district-attorney-chesa-boudin-condemns-acts-of-aapi-hate-said-trump-encourage-it-in-npr-interview/
There has been some criticism from some victims regarding Boudin’s decision to not pursue hate crime charges, in regard to at least one case that I recall. However, I’m not necessarily expressing agreement or disagreement regarding that.
That may not be a “good thing”, either.
I’m sorry but Trump’s decision to label COVID as he did contributed to the current environment. We can look at the data. We can see the rise of anti-Asian incidents. There is a connection there.
In terms of charging hate crimes – it seems like you are trying to have it both ways – is he playing up the hate crimes or downplaying them? Hate crimes are really hard to prosecute. That’s why you don’t see a lot of hate crime charges. You mentioned there was criticism for him not pursuing hate crime charges and last week you and others were questioning whether he could pursue them in another case.
In either case, I don’t see anything that you have pointed out that justifies your initial comment. You disagree with his politics, that doesn’t make it somehow unfathomable that others would disagree with yours.
The statistics you’ve referenced are highly questionable. For example, they show an extremely high increase, which may largely be the result of increased reporting (by “activist” organizations). Much of which occurred after Trump left office, as well.
As I recall, one of these organizations had several examples of what they viewed as hate crimes, in which they specifically-spelled out the “white” race of the alleged perpetrator. And yet, not even one of the examples mentioned any black perpetrators.
What does that tell you, regarding this organization and their reporting? And what does it tell you if Boudin associates with them? In addition to the extremely high reported increase?
Again, not all Asians are liberal/progressive (and some support Trump). Again I ask would they feel about their prosecutor engaging in this type of blatant politicizing regarding crime which may impact them, directly?
“I” am not trying to do anything – other than pointing out that a prosecutor should not be attempting to turn this into a political issue (favoring one side or another).
I don’t believe that I questioned anything regarding that. Many months ago, I noted that a family questioned Boudin’s decision to not pursue hate crime charges (in a different case). In which an elderly Asian man was killed.
Well, you said that he “did” address his views regarding what his parents did. So apparently, you think he did need to address it, himself.
I think the main problem is that you reject the notion that anti-Asian hate was catalyzed by Trump during the pandemic.
If you want to see tension between the Asian and Black communities (which has nothing to do with Trump), I’d refer you to what’s been occurring with the San Francisco school district board (along with their decisions to do-away with merit-based enrollments at Lowell High School).
Of course, one board member previously attributed that conflict to white supremacy, as well. With nary a white person to be found.
It truly takes some creativity to come up with these arguments. I take my hat off to them in awe, almost as much as I do regarding those who come up with various creative arguments to support development.
But hey, at least they didn’t oust a school board member based upon her undesirable white color, so maybe they’re not actually as bad in San Francisco. Or maybe they don’t even have any white school board members to begin with (not sure).
Though now that I think about it, one could conclude that there are business interests arising out of the criminal justice reform movement.
With one source of funding being the cities and police departments that are being sued by high-powered attorneys.
Yes he has – many times. Watch 60 Minutes for starters, I guess.
Why am I reminded of the old Groucho Marx schtick about “the secret word”… it appears the secret word for today is “catalyze”…