A San Francisco judge imposed a $26,000 fine on Public Defender Mano Raju on Tuesday — $1,000 for each person charged by the district attorney that Raju’s office had refused to represent in court.
The sanction comes after the public defender’s office has said it does not have enough attorneys to handle an influx of criminal cases and guarantee effective counsel to everyone.
The courtroom on Tuesday was packed with more than 100 onlookers. Many were there in support of Raju, including nine chief public defenders from other California counties.
The ruling is the latest in a standoff that has lasted months.
Raju’s office continues to take the vast majority of cases, but began turning down cases last May. In January, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Harry M. Dorfman ordered the public defender’s office to stop turning down cases, but Raju continued and, at a hearing on March 10, Dorfman found him in contempt of court.
“It’s a constitutional fight that needs to happen for equity in our city and in our country,” Raju said today before the hearing.
The fastest solution, he said, would be to fund the public defender’s office, which he said needs 36 more attorneys.
Kory DeClark, Raju’s attorney, argued that this is a systemic problem, and the public defender’s office wasn’t the only one responsible. He said the district attorney’s office keeps prosecuting more cases, and the mayor’s office decides the budget to allocate to the public defender’s office.
DeClark asked the judge not to impose a monetary sanction, saying that the charge of contempt was sufficient punishment.
Dorfman said he had read several letters from other chief public defenders arguing on behalf of Raju, saying he is the best person to evaluate whether his lawyers have full caseloads and cannot take on more cases. Still, he was not persuaded.
“I concluded that he has available lawyers,” Dorfman told the court.
In May, Chief Attorney Matt Gonzalez with the public defender’s office wrote in a letter to the San Francisco Superior Court that the average caseload for felony attorneys in their office is 65. For misdemeanor attorneys, it is 145, he wrote. Both exceed those of neighboring public defender offices in the Bay Area.
The public defender’s office began declining misdemeanor cases one or two days a week and felony cases one day a week due to the excessive caseloads.
For some time, the San Francisco Bar Association tried to fill in the gap by representing those the public defender’s office declined to take on, but in October the Bar’s private defense attorneys said they, too, had reached capacity.
The crisis left defendants held in jail longer due to a lack of attorneys who could represent them, leading the San Francisco Superior Court to release a statement announcing it would start releasing some people from pre-trial custody if they don’t have legal representation.
April Frazier Camara, president of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, said the San Francisco public defender’s office has some of the highest caseloads in the Bay Area. Active cases in San Francisco have risen 65 percent since 2019, according to the public defender’s office.
“Being held in contempt is very concerning, not just for San Francisco, but for public defenders around the country, because they have to be able to maintain their right to be independent and determine how many cases their office can handle,” she said.
Judge Dorfman gave the public defender’s office until April 10 to pay the sanctions. The office said it’s going to appeal the judge’s decision with a higher court.
“It’s disappointing that the court had a pre typed out and printed decision,” Raju told Mission Local.
Although several people told the judge that their workloads far exceed ethical limitations, the judge did not engage with their testimonies, Raju said. “He just looked at the situation from his perspective.”
Courage to the public defenders in carrying on this fight. When we prosecute people, they need to have real representation so that we don’t railroad a lot of people unfairly.
And that costs money! That’s just part of the cost of putting people through the criminal legal system. If our leaders aren’t willing to pay that cost, that just has to mean we can’t prosecute so many people. It’s hardly the biggest part of those costs anyway — keeping a person in jail for months or years is far more expensive.
every time i get called up for jury duty in SF the prosecutor spends hours and days explaining how all the evidence is circumstantial, they have no hard evidence, no witnesses. The defender usually spends an equal amount of time explaining how pleading the 5th is a reasonable defense, and that the defendant will actually say nothing because the prosecutor effectively has nothing on them. Can the DA please send some solid cases to court instead of flimsy wastes of time? This might solve a few pressing problems for the court system.
Or perhaps Raju needs to be replaced by someone with better man management skills?
Here is what happens when the newbie and billionaire mayor and his corrupt money grubbing DA double down on giving all of the city’s limited funds to overtime abusing SFPD and gambling addicted SFSherriffs. In SF, under Lurie and Crooked Jenkins, you’re guilty until proven innocent.
Did DA Jenkins, who is the one deciding to process the highest number of misdemeanors in a decade and doesn’t seem to believe in mental health treatment as an option, get more funding? Last May, she asked for more money because misdemeanor caseloads should be “closer to 100.” Raju showed up to that meeting with supervisors as well to concur that the caseload is high. I wonder if public defenders are getting higher caseloads than the prosecutors. I am also remembering the DA office bringing some cases that seemed really flimsy?
In 2025, half of the cases, DA Jenkins took to trial ended without a conviction.
That’s SF citizens telling the DA they’re charging twice as many cases as they should.
I feel for the PD’s office and support the first decision to turn down cases. But once a judge orders you to stop doing that, you have to comply. You can appeal, but you can’t just ignore a court order. We brought a lawsuit against Fresno County to obtain more public defender funding, and the bar is really high to make such a claim. It’s a tough situation but lawyers cannot just disregard court orders.
IDK, I respect the fellow for putting his duty to the client first.
Comrades,
Hey, I’m an old Lefty and that’s a proper greet before another tough battle.
Manu fights for the People of the World with the best Public Defender law office in the United States, built by the best of Adachi and Gonzalez and now led by the guy Matt says is the best trial lawyer he’s seen … Mano Raju !!
Remember, the deck is always stacked against the Poor when they go to court and San Francisco is a Shining Star of an example as to how to Fight the Man !!
Anyone else old enuff to remember when Sheriff Michael Hennessey allowed himself to be locked up in his own jail for refusing the evict poor Filipino tenants from the ‘I’ Hotel ?
When Adachi ran into the exact same problem that Manu has today, the Courts supported him and agreed that it was unconstitutional to exceed their maximum caseload and sent a representative (Gonzalez remembers, he was there) and told the Mayor and all that he would authorize hiring much more expensive Outside Attorneys to pick up the caseload.
And, we all realize right, that this is because Mayor Lurie along with DA Jenkins has taking a Revenge Stance on Crime all the way down to arresting drug customers which has overloaded both the jails and courts.
And, it is proven Not to Work !
go Niners !!
h.
I recall that the public defender’s office invested a lot of time and effort into defending García Zárate, an illegal alien who shot and killed a woman on the Embarcadero a few years ago.
I was under the impression that taxpayers’ money should not be used to defend those who are not here legally. Could that be a part of the reason why they are so over-worked? Are they tuning down cases involving US citizens as defendants so that they can defend those on immigration charges?
As the Sixth Amendment does not limit the rights of the accused to citizens, you would have to amend it further to discriminate the way you imagine.
Ralph, it is not about “citizens”. And in fact green card holders are entitled to public defence, as are holders of valid visas.
I was talking specifically about people who are not here legally. If the PD’s office is investing heavily in defending them, then that could explain why it is having capacity issues elsewhere.
Lawlessness is lawlessness
Politics are interferring with justice
I have to side with the judge on this one
I think the public defender is not the best fit and hopefully personally pays the money
If taxpayers need to pay then he needs to stepdown
Complaining about a “pre-typed” decision is silly. This was no doubt well-briefed on an adequate record. Judges *usually* have a prepared decision. No surprise that nothing happened at the hearing to change his mind.
John,
Do you know how much money the DA spent just on flying Federal agents (the gun was stolen from a BLM officer) in and out of town ?
In Scopes, both sides brought in the best lawyers in the country.
In SF, the Defense already had Matt Gonzalez who, having run for U.S. Vice prez with Nader atop the ticket. reminded me of the place William Jennings Bryan was in the Scopes Monkey trial only Matt won and boy did that piss Trump off.
And, yes, John even people in the country illegally, like the elected President of Venezuela … even they get a fair defense and trial.
go Niners !!
h.