Randy Knox Oct. 15, 2021 (SFChronicle.com)
As a prosecutor under San Francisco District Attorney Arlo Smith in the ’80s and ’90s, I watched as the crack epidemic, gang violence and rising murder rates made the city feel chaotic and unsafe. Later in my career, as a criminal defense lawyer, I defended cases against prosecutors under District Attorneys Terence Hallinan, Kamala Harris, George Gascón and Suzy Loftus.
All told, I have been practicing criminal law in this city for over 35 years. And I can say with the certainly of experience that disorder and strife in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office are nothing new.
One thing I’ve never seen, however, is San Franciscans take a vote on whether to recall their district attorney amid the chaos.
Chesa Boudin was elected district attorney in 2019 in a ranked-choice election, receiving the most first place votes and the most adjusted first-place votes as the most progressive candidate in a field that included interim District Attorney Loftus, who had been appointed by Mayor London Breed one month before the election after Gascón resigned to move to Los Angeles.
Boudin is an easy target for those dissatisfied with the state of public safety in San Francisco. Statistics showing that crime is down are outweighed by the general perception that our current situation is bad and not getting any better. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Bruce Chan recently took the highly unusual step of publicly commenting on the situation: “I cannot express in any more certain terms my disapproval of the manner in which the Office of the District Attorney is being managed,” and “we simply cannot have the current levels of inadvertence, disorganization, and expect there to be any confidence in what we do here collectively.”
But in my opinion, the criminal justice system has teetered on the verge of collapse for decades, long before Boudin took office.
Under each district attorney, unclear or inconsistent priorities, internecine power struggles and a variable work ethic among staff have hindered the efficient administration of justice. The perpetual emphasis on conviction rates has overshadowed the welfare of those who live, work and visit San Francisco. The constant friction between the police and the district attorney has also contributed to delays in prosecutions and disparities in outcomes that undermine public confidence in the system.
Things have worsened with COVID, no doubt. Court backlogs have increased to record levels because emergency COVID orders closed some courts and extended all speedy trial deadlines by months. San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju sued the courts last month for failing to provide defendants with timely trials. Having to sit in an enclosed space with strangers has made jury duty even less appealing than it was before. Because of jail overcrowding during COVID and the abolition of cash bail in California, judges are called on more often to decide which pretrial detainees (all of whom are presumed innocent) are released and who remains in jail. Some of those released will commit more crimes.
But the general discord and disarray in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office are features of the system, not bugs.
When Hallinan took office in 1996 he immediately fired 14 senior prosecutors, causing an unprecedented level of anxiety at his office. Harris was blasted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the cops for not seeking the death penalty in the murder of San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinosa. Harris also had to weather the San Francisco Police Department Crime Lab scandal when technician Deborah Madden was accused of pilfering cocaine from the evidence locker. Thousands of pending criminal cases were dismissed as a result.
Property crimes in San Francisco increased almost 50% under Gascón. His relationships with Mayor Breed and then City Attorney Dennis Herrera were so bad that they endorsed Gascón’s opponent, Jackie Lacey, when Gascón ran for Los Angeles District Attorney.
Regardless of who’s in charge, the cops always say the district attorney is too soft on crime and the loudest voices on the office’s staff complain that morale had never been lower.
It’s pointless now to argue that Boudin’s recall is a waste of time and money or a distraction from actual governance. Or that Boudin has not committed malfeasance that warrants a recall or that he can be thrown out by the voters in 2024. The vote is likely happening and we’re stuck with it.
The majority of San Franciscan who voted in 2019 supported Boudin’s progressive stances despite, or maybe because of, his lack of prosecutorial experience. The rancor of this recall seems fueled by the discontent of those who voted for someone else, many of whom blame Boudin for a wide range of problems, some of which are beyond his control; homelessness, drug abuse and mental illness have never been solved or even lessened by the criminal justice system.
The criminal justice system is a machine that needs the gears to mesh and work together. Prosecutors have to accept and implement the policies of the district attorney. The police have to fairly and conscientiously investigate crimes and make arrests. Prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges have to prepare, evaluate and resolve cases through restorative and rehabilitative programs, pleas or trials. Even in the adversarial criminal system, civility helps.
Recalling Boudin will not be the magic bullet that improves public safety.
Randy Knox is a criminal defense attorney and former San Francisco assistant district attorney.About Opinion
©2021 Hearst
