![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/SF-Hall-of-Justice-2021-3-e1715713621181-765x510.jpg\")
\n\t\tSan Francisco Hall of Justice \u2013 Photo by David M. Greenwald\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\tSan Francisco Hall of Justice \u2013 Photo by David M. Greenwald\t\t<\/p>\n
By: Nikou Kangarloo-Foroutan, Adrienne Bryant, Donovan Castillero<\/p>\n
SAN FRANCISCO, CA \u2014 In the San Francisco Hall of Justice Tuesday afternoon, Judge Harry Dorfman denied a request for appellate review of his previous decision to hold San Francisco Public Defender Manohar Raju in contempt and ordered monetary sanctions of $26,000\u2014despite compelling testimony from attorneys and staff members in his support.<\/p>\n
The hearing followed Judge Dorfman\u2019s earlier decision to hold Raju in contempt for refusing to have the Public Defender\u2019s Office take on 28 cases from Jan. 12 to Feb. 10, citing that the office is already operating at 150% above its caseload capacity, according to the National Workload Study.<\/p>\n
Prior to the hearing, a press conference was held in which Manohar Raju and other public defenders from different counties gave statements in support of San Francisco\u2019s Public Defender, while also identifying the systemic issues that led to the situation.<\/p>\n
Regarding his decision to decline additional cases, Raju told the press that taking on excessive caseloads compromises the quality of representation each client deserves. He argued that San Franciscans deserve a Public Defender\u2019s Office that is properly funded and resourced to provide constitutional representation.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen you represent a population like we do, that\u2019s very vulnerable, it\u2019s even more important that we represent them at a high level,\u201d Raju said, adding, \u201cThis is a fight that needs to happen for equity.\u201d<\/p>\n
San Joaquin County Public Defender Judy Anne Vallado stood firmly with Raju\u2019s concerns, arguing that her office faces similar issues of understaffing and underfunding.<\/p>\n
\u201cAn attorney that doesn\u2019t have enough time on a case is not an attorney,\u201d ____ said. \u201cThat\u2019s just a name next to a case.\u201d She noted that her office handles 85% of the same cases as the District Attorney but has less than half the number of attorneys.<\/p>\n
Public defenders from Alameda, Contra Costa, and Sonoma counties were also present in support of Raju, stating that the systemic issue is a lack of parity in funding between public defender and district attorney offices.<\/p>\n
As the courtroom opened, it was filled with attorneys, community advocates, and interns supporting Raju, with many forced to wait outside once seating reached capacity.<\/p>\n
Judge Dorfman began the hearing by outlining two key issues: whether his ruling would constitute one order of contempt or 26 separate orders for each case declined, and what sanctions would be appropriate. He revised his earlier count from 28 cases to 26, noting that three involved the same client.<\/p>\n
The court then allowed the defense to present testimony.<\/p>\n
Defense attorney Kory DeClark called several staff members from the Public Defender\u2019s Office, beginning with Raju.<\/p>\n
In his testimony, Raju cited the National Public Defense Workload Study to demonstrate that the office\u2019s workload far exceeds recommended levels.<\/p>\n
He argued that complying with Judge Dorfman\u2019s order would be unethical and harmful to clients and staff. Following the order, he said, would mean \u201cparents would not be able to return to their child as quickly,\u201d \u201cmothers waiting for their child to be placed in an appropriate stay will have to wait longer,\u201d and \u201csomeone pleading guilty due to the lack of confidence of being served in a timely manner.\u201d<\/p>\n
Raju warned of potentially severe consequences, including wrongful deportations and unlawful incarceration, emphasizing that \u201cthis is a real human rights issue\u201d and \u201cthis is contrary to the American Bar Association.\u201d<\/p>\n
Jesse Huber, a senior investigator with 8.5 years at the office, testified about increasing pressures on the Investigation Unit. He explained that advances in surveillance technology have made investigations more complex, while resources have not kept pace.<\/p>\n
Similar concerns were raised by social worker Mileti Afuhaamango, who works in the reentry unit. She cited a 54% increase in assignment requests in 2025 compared to the previous year.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe volume exceeds what the unit is staffed with,\u201d Afuhaamango said, adding that her team \u201ccan only handle a small percentage of cases.\u201d As a result, \u201cthe overall legal outcome seriously declines,\u201d and \u201cpeople remain in custody as social workers can\u2019t do their work before the deadline.\u201d<\/p>\n
Because these services are critical, she said, excessive caseloads lead to longer incarceration, poorer outcomes, and diminished reentry support.<\/p>\n
Deputy Public Defender Tal Klement testified that he is at his \u201climit\u201d due to increased felony caseloads, which he attributed in part to overcharging by the District Attorney\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n
He described spending up to 75 hours preparing for a single trial, along with an additional 15 to 20 hours weekly on court appearances and other cases.<\/p>\n
\u201cI take issue with the fact that there are so-called \u2018trial-track\u2019 cases and \u2018non trial track\u2019 cases, because every case requires the same amount of work,\u201d Klement said.<\/p>\n
He added that the workload has strained his personal life and harmed his physical and mental health, noting \u201cphysical pain in my back from writing motions\u201d and that he attends \u201cphysical therapy as a result.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe whole system is being crushed by the increased violence, but the blame and punishment seems to only be put on the Public Defender\u2019s Office,\u201d Klement said. \u201cWe deserve, and most importantly, our clients deserve zealous and competent representation, based on a manageable caseload.\u201d<\/p>\n
Deputy Public Defender Seth Meisels echoed those concerns, saying caseloads have \u201cexpanded exponentially\u201d while each case now requires more extensive review due to prosecutorial practices.<\/p>\n
\u201cMost cases will not go to trial, but it has become increasingly difficult to determine which ones will,\u201d Meisels said, noting that the DA is often \u201cunwilling\u201d to engage in meaningful pretrial negotiations. As a result, attorneys may spend over 100 hours on a case that is later dismissed.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is simply too much work,\u201d Meisels said. \u201cWe are constantly forced to prioritize not what our clients need, but who needs it the most.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rachel Jones, lead justice director and a San Francisco native, testified about Raju\u2019s character.<\/p>\n
\u201cMano is always diligent, responsive, and coordinated. As I\u2019ve watched him over the last two decades, not just work within the San Francisco Public Defenders Office but in our community. He is the public defender,\u201d Jones said.<\/p>\n
She added that Mano \u201cdoesn\u2019t just walk with us\u2026 but he walks with us through our successes in life.\u201d<\/p>\n
Addressing the court directly, Jones urged the judge to rely on evidence, stating, \u201ctrust the data, trust disparities, trust the science.\u201d She concluded by emphasizing the broader implications of the decision, saying that \u201cif we assume that the public defender\u2019s office is in contempt, and then we assume that the mayor\u2019s office is the public defender.\u201d<\/p>\n
In closing, DeClark argued that sanctions were inappropriate because the issue is systemic, and therefore beyond the scope of contempt power.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Public Defender should not have to carry the weight of something that is not their fault,\u201d DeClark said.<\/p>\n
He added that Raju has nothing to gain personally and that complying with the court\u2019s order would violate ethical obligations.<\/p>\n
DeClark also argued that monetary sanctions would worsen the problem, given the office\u2019s underfunding.<\/p>\n
\u201cGiven the publicity of the case, court finding contempt is already in itself a sanction,\u201d DeClark said. \u201cMonetary orders would make the problem worse.\u201d<\/p>\n
Judge Dorfman acknowledged the testimony and the more than 45 letters he received from attorneys, organizations, and unions nationwide urging him to reverse course. Nonetheless, he reaffirmed his decision, clarifying that each of the 26 cases constituted a separate act of contempt.<\/p>\n
Responding to DeClark\u2019s characterization of his ruling as a \u201cgreat and unjustifiable abuse of power,\u201d Dorfman maintained that the court has authority in assigning cases.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe court is not a bystander in this case,\u201d Dorfman said, arguing that once attorneys were deemed available, he was required to appoint them.<\/p>\n
\u201cMr. Raju, you have defied every order,\u201d Dorfman said. \u201cJust because I recognize Raju\u2019s good faith does not mean I will refute court orders.\u201d<\/p>\n
Judge Dorfman imposed $1,000 per case, totaling $26,000 in sanctions, due by April 3. He denied the request for appellate review.<\/p>\n
DeClark requested additional time, \u201cat least 3 weeks,\u201d citing the complexity of appealing multiple contempt findings. Dorfman granted an extension to April 10, noting the issue was \u201cnot a new issue.\u201d<\/p>\n
DeClark and Raju plan to appeal the order, with the next hearing scheduled for April 14.<\/p>\n
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media \u2013 X<\/a>, Instagram <\/a>and Facebook<\/a>.\u00a0 Subscribe <\/a>the Vanguard News letters.\u00a0 To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org\/donate<\/a> or give directly through ActBlue<\/a>.\u00a0 Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.<\/p>\n Categories: Breaking News<\/a> Court Watch<\/a> Northern California Court Watch<\/a> San Francisco Court Watch<\/a> Vanguard Court Watch<\/a> Tags: Caseload Crisis<\/a> Indigent Defense<\/a> Judge Harry Dorfman<\/a> Manohar Raju<\/a> monetary sanctions<\/a> San Francisco Public Defender<\/a>