![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/0hoj2.jpg\")
\t\t\tThe ground floor hallway of San Francisco Superior Court at 850 Bryant St. Photo on Jan. 16, 2025 by Abigail Van Neely. <\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe ground floor hallway of San Francisco Superior Court at 850 Bryant St. Photo on Jan. 16, 2025 by Abigail Van Neely. <\/p>\n
San Francisco\u2019s public defenders say the district attorney\u2019s office is still withholding evidence months after they warned the state bar about an alleged \u201cpattern and practice,\u201d and doing so in nearly half of their misdemeanor trials.<\/p>\n
Withholding evidence, the public defenders say, makes it much harder for them to represent their clients, and violates their clients\u2019 constitutional rights.<\/p>\n
The allegations come amidst a rise<\/a> in misdemeanor cases filed by District Attorney Brooke Jenkins as the city has prioritized lower-level crimes<\/a> for policing and prosecution<\/a>. The increase in charges has at times overwhelmed<\/a> the court system<\/a>.<\/p>\n Eight months ago, the public defender\u2019s office sent a letter<\/a> to the California bar association alleging the DA had a \u201cpattern and practice\u201d of withholding evidence<\/a>. The letter said that prosecutors withheld evidence in at least 50 cases between September 2024 and March 2025.<\/p>\n But Jenkins\u2019 office denies the allegations, calling them \u201cbald and unsubstantiated.\u201d In fact, the DA\u2019s office accused the public defender of delaying giving evidence to the prosecution.\u00a0<\/p>\n Under California law, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys must each disclose evidence to one another at least 30 days before trial, during a phase known as the \u201cdiscovery\u201d process<\/a>. Public defenders claim the DA has been providing evidence after the 30-day window, and in some cases, failing to provide evidence altogether.\u00a0<\/p>\n Since the initial letter, public defenders claim that the DA\u2019s office has continued to improperly withhold evidence. Their most recent data, which has not yet been publicly released but was shared with Mission Local, shows public defenders reported a violation 76 times in 40 out of their 83 misdemeanor trials \u2014\u00a048 percent. <\/p>\n Among the allegedly withheld evidence: body camera footage, 911 calls and lost or damaged lab samples.<\/p>\n The DA\u2019s office added that 40 cases is a minute percentage of its overall caseload: \u201cIf their allegations were in fact true, which they have not provided evidence to support, it would mean that there was late discovery in .01 percent of the 3,637 pending misdemeanor cases, not a pattern,” read a statement from the office.<\/p>\n The data collected by the public defender\u2019s office focused on the 83 cases they have taken to trial, rather than all pending cases. Jacque Wilson, a managing attorney of the public defender\u2019s misdemeanor unit, said this was a conservative estimate that represented only “the tip of the iceberg.”<\/p>\n In mid-November, the public defender\u2019s office did provide the DA with a list of 10 cases where it had concluded evidence was improperly withheld. The DA\u2019s office said it looked into eight of those cases and found that prosecutors had \u201cbehaved responsibly and ethically,\u201d turning over evidence as soon as it came into their possession.<\/p>\n The DA\u2019s office also countered that the public defender \u201croutinely\u201d withheld evidence from the prosecution. While the DA\u2019s office said it has not been tracking such incidents formally, it shared five examples with Mission Local.\u00a0<\/p>\n The evidence allegedly withheld in these cases included documents regarding a defendant\u2019s mental health, and expert witnesses\u2019 resumes and statements.<\/p>\n Defense attorneys and prosecutors have different obligations when it comes to sharing evidence. The prosecution, which has the burden of proof<\/a>, must share evidence that could exonerate a defendant.\u00a0<\/p>\n “Only the prosecution has a constitutional duty to search its files and disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence,\u201d said Wilson. \u201cThe defense does not.\u201d<\/p>\n