For the second time in two years, the San Francisco district attorney’s office is refusing to try cases before Judge Michelle Tong, a former public defender, alleging that she is biased against the DA.
If the court allows it to continue doing so, the DA’s office will de-facto oust Tong from the Hall of Justice — again.
Rochelle East, San Francisco Superior Court’s presiding judge, ruled Tuesday morning that Jenkins’ office could blanket refuse to present cases before Tong. Ana Gonzalez, chief assistant to the DA, argued Tong “has been abusive in treatment of police and prosecutors.”
“All attorneys in California have the right to exercise a challenge,” wrote the district attorney’s office to Mission Local, to ensure they “can have confidence their cases will be heard by a fair and unbiased judicial officer.”
Rose Mishaan, a private defense attorney who filed an objection in 2025 when District Attorney Brooke Jenkins first tried — and subsequently succeeded — in ousting Tong, said the office’s action sets a precedent where attorneys can “judge-shop” and search for courts where they’ll receive favorable outcomes.
“Effectively, Judge Tong will be driven away from the criminal court” if this continues, she said. “If we allow the DA to do this, we are giving them the authority to decide who does and who does not get to sit at the Hall of Justice.”
Jenkins’ prosecutors first launched a blanket challenge against Tong in 2025, when they accused the former public defender of bias. That challenge led to at least 340 cases not being heard, before Tong was relocated to the city’s civil courts.
Tong returned to criminal court Tuesday morning, tasked with preliminary hearing and arraignments in felony cases.
But by the end of Tuesday morning, not a single legal issue in those cases had been heard. Instead, in every case, DA prosecutors lodged what is called a “170.6,” a civil procedure that lets attorneys request their case be reassigned once-per-case, without offering a reason why.
That procedure exists so attorneys can avoid courtrooms where they believe they or their client will be personally targeted or face prejudice. In practice, however, the filings are used often by attorneys on both sides who dislike the presiding judge they’re facing.
The public defender’s office issued a similar blanket objection against former Drug Court Judge Murlene Randle, in February of this year, claiming that Randle was not fair.
A 2026 California Supreme Court decision, J.O. v Super Ct., found that “bad faith” en-masse objections to appearing before a particular judge violate the separation of powers. Attorneys must now prove genuine “prejudice.”
Gonzalez, the DA chief assistant, said her office’s motions passed muster under the case and listed a series of examples she said showed Tong’s prejudice, like an instance when Tong called a police officer “shady” after his testimony in civil court.
The public defender’s office argued the objections were unconstitutional, but East ultimately decided in the DA’s favor based on a single instance: In 2019, Gonzalez told the court, Tong allegedly said to Aaron Laycook of the DA’s office that she would “get even” with him after a contentious hearing, when she was still a public defender.
Aleem Raja, felony director of the public defender’s office, said he was concerned East made her ruling based on the belief that Tong had been a judge at the time.
“We are concerned that the judge made a ruling based on a mishearing of the DA’s statement,” Raja said.
Tuesday afternoon, a visiting judge replaced Tong in Department 9 of the Hall of Justice, attorneys at the court confirmed. Tong is expected to return tomorrow. If she does, the DA appears ready to continue refusing hearings.
This article was updated to include a blanket challenge issued by the public defender’s office earlier this year.
Allowing the district attorney to pick judges is unconscionable and we should not allow it in San Francisco.
Paul, that is not what is happening here. The focus is on just one particular judge who has demonstrated consistent bias in her rulings.
Unlike the 400,000 judges in this country that are biased towards the prosecution. Prosecutors are such babies. Lawyering on easy mode and they still complain.
Ron, she hasn’t made any rulings at the Hall of Justice. How could she have “demonstrated consistent bias” in those nonexistent rulings?
She should stay in the civil court system where she can do less harm.
Sounds like DA Brooke Jenkins has an anti-justice bias.
If the defense bar did this to every judge who favored cops and prosecutors, the entire system would grind to a halt. (They should.)
You can only do it once per case. So if you use it on once judge, you are stuck with the second one.
Brooke Jenkins is seriously the most unprofessional DA ever, this is pathetic.
Jenkins is a right wing career politician first and a fair minded justice-focused professional last. Her constant grandstanding tactics are an embarrassment to what should be an honorable office.
the DA’s office is corrupt.
S.F. prosecutors and anyone else who isn’t anti-police needs to be fired. They are racist thugs and there are only a few good apples in the cop barrel.
The City Attorney’s Office also blanket challenges Judge Tong.
By the fact that the PD and DA offices both have blanket bans on specific judges, it sounds like typical back and forth in the court room. Justice in America is about winning. That’s the way it is.
Keep Judge Tong in civil (rather than criminal) court — she’s done a great job there and her biases have had no effect in that venue.
Problem solved.