SF Judge Orders Public Defender to Accept Felony Cases After 250 Dismissals

Judge Harry Dorfman ordered San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju to accept appointment in all felony arraignments at the Hall of Justice and warned he may hold Raju and Chief Deputy Matt Gonzalez in contempt for refusing cases. GrowSF reported the judge "threatened to hold San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju and Chief Deputy Matt Gonzalez in contempt after the office refused to take on a new felony case," and the courtroom exchange included Dorfman saying, "You have willfully refused to follow the order," according to SFStandard.

The order follows months of conflict that the Public Defender’s Office first flagged in May 2025, when it alerted the presiding judge it could not accept every felony arraignment because active pending felony cases had climbed sharply. DavisVanguard cited the Superior Court dashboard showing a 55% increase in pending felony cases and a 78% rise in misdemeanors over recent years, and reported the PDO began declaring certain days "unavailable," prompting courts to appoint private attorneys on those days.

Prosecutors and the district attorney framed the refusal as a constitutional and public safety problem at the same time other outlets flagged operational consequences. Chief Deputy District Attorney Ana Gonzalez told the court, "The public defender’s office should not have a problem handling the cases that they are legally required to," and added, "We do consider that this decision of unavailability is basically an abdication of their constitutional duties." District Attorney Brooke Jenkins applauded Dorfman’s order, saying, "This not only puts public safety at risk, but erodes the public’s trust in the criminal justice system."

GrowSF and court filings also note the court has contemplated releasing pretrial defendants who remain jailed without counsel because of the standoff. GrowSF reported, "The court has already considered releasing some pretrial defendants when people are stuck in jail without counsel due to the Public Defender’s refusal to take cases." SFStandard said the court told parties in October it would begin releasing defendants from pretrial custody, though it was "unclear if any have been let go."

An Original Report cited in the reporting asserts "automatic dismissal of over 250 serious charges including felons, rapists, and traffickers." That >250 dismissal figure appears only in that Original Report among the materials reviewed; other outlets describe the risk of releases and dismissals but do not reproduce the same quantified total in the excerpts provided.

Budget and staffing figures lie at the heart of the dispute. DavisVanguard reported the city budget imposed a $2.8 million attrition goal that would effectively leave 17 felony attorney positions vacant for a year, while the Public Defender asked City Hall for 8 new felony attorney positions and national workload standards were cited as recommending 41 new attorneys. DavisVanguard also noted the city approved $92 million in new police overtime funding during the same budget cycle.

Legal standards frame the clash: GrowSF invoked Gideon v. Wainwright and wrote, "The law is clear - all defendants have the right to an attorney and must be provided one if they cannot afford one." Localnewsmatters and court reporting remind readers that speedy-trial deadlines are 45 days for misdemeanors and 60 days for felonies; coverage also recalled a separate episode in which 70 misdemeanor cases were dismissed after exceeding deadlines.

Judge Dorfman has signaled he will enforce the order to accept felony arraignments unless conflicts exist, and contempt proceedings are now a live possibility. The immediate practical question for the Hall of Justice and the county remains whether those courtroom orders will be matched by City Hall budget action, by staffing changes inside the Public Defender’s Office, or by further releases or dismissals recorded on Superior Court dockets.