Home Blog Page 38

Thousands of SF Youth to Receive Backpacks, Resources in Back-to-Back Events

-
0
Thousands of SF Youth to Receive Backpacks, Resources in Back-to-Back Events

San Francisco, CA — To ensure local students start the academic year with the tools needed for success, the San Francisco Public Defender’s MAGIC programs will distribute backpacks stuffed with school supplies to more than 3,500 children and youth during two August events.

Saturday, Aug. 5

Western Addition Health Fair and Backpack Giveaway.

10 am. -1 p.m.

Ella Hill Hutch Community Center – 1050 McAllister St.

More than 1,500 backpacks and school supply kits will be handed out to students from pre-K to college. Health care providers will offer vision and hearing screenings, glucose testing, and dental checkups; community based organizations will be available for families in need of resources and information. More than 80 community volunteers are expected to support the event.

Saturday, Aug. 12

BVHP  14th Annual Back to School Event and Backpack Giveaway

11 a.m. to 3 p.m.

PG&E’s NOW Hunters Point Site – 155 Jennings St.

This is the second year BMAGIC will be hosting at NOW Hunters Point, a project supported by Pacific Gas and Electric, NOW Hunters Point activates a portion of the former Hunters Point power plant site with short-term events and community serving programs as part of an innovative site maintenance and community engagement strategy. Approximately 2,000 elementary, middle school, and high school students will receive school uniforms and backpacks stuffed with school supplies. Students in K-8 must attend with parent or guardian. Free shuttle provided by Salvation Army will pick up attendees at four stops: Evans Street at Third Street; Evans Street at Middle Point; Huntersview at 1101 Fairfax Ave; and Youngblood Coleman Park on Hudson. Families can also look forward to a Kid Zone which will include Street Soccer USA, haircuts provided by New Generation Cuts and so much more.

The two back-to-school events are among the largest and most comprehensive of their kind in the Bay Area, said San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi.

“The MAGIC back to school events not only provide San Francisco students with school supplies, they are critically important for families who want to connect with health, housing, and legal resources,” Adachi said.

The annual events are held by MAGIC (Mobilization for Adolescent Growth in our Communities,) an organization initiated by the Public Defender’s Office in 2004. MAGIC reduces the number of youth who enter the juvenile justice system or fall through social service gaps by efficiently coordinating opportunities, support and resources. While Mo’ MAGIC centers its efforts in the Fillmore/Western Addition neighborhoods, its sister organization, BMAGIC, focuses on Bayview-Hunters Point.

More than 100 community-based organizations working in the areas of health, environment, juvenile and social justice, faith-based and after-school programming will be represented at the events, along with elected officials, city agencies, local merchants, funders, grass roots activist, and organizers. Healthy food, sports, games and live entertainment will be provided.

“Our backpack giveaway is one of the flagship events that serves as a platform to demonstrate our dedication to community, education for our youth and fun,” Mo’MAGIC Executive Director Kimiah Tucker said. “It’s a kickoff to the support we eagerly anticipate providing to families throughout the school year.”

The events also serve to bring neighbors together, said BMAGIC Executive Director Lyslynn Lacoste.

“BMAGIC and our network of partners look forward to this community building event and strive to improve the experience for our young people and their families as well ensure they are prepared and excited for the start of the new school year,” Lacoste said.

Mo’ MAGIC event’s sponsors include Kaiser Permanente; the Office of Public Defender Jeff Adachi; the Department of Children, Youth & Their Families; Schools of the Sacred Heart; University of San Francisco; Sutter Health-CPMC; and the Bay Area Black Nurses Association.

BMAGIC sponsors include the San Francisco 49ers Foundation; Golden State Warriors; California Pacific Medical Center, Comcast; San Francisco Credit Union; Union Bank Foundation, and Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Uniforms are donated by the Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation.

Don’t Let Trump Use an Accident to Foment Hate

-
0

by Francisco Ugarte

Special to the SF Bay View

No topic is more important to President Donald Trump’s political agenda than immigration. And since July 1, 2015, he has used one case – the tragic death of Kathryn Steinle – as his sounding board to demonize immigrants, call for mass deportation, and demand an end to “sanctuary” policies which limit the role of local and state governments in enforcing immigration laws.

And now, Trump is urging passage of legislation that would turn local police departments into a federal deportation force. Trump regularly invokes the name of Ms. Steinle as justification for this legislation.

Steinle, a young woman in the prime of her life, tragically died when hit by a ricocheted bullet while walking along San Francisco’s Pier 14, a popular tourist destination. Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who had been released from criminal custody in San Francisco several months earlier, is accused of causing Ms. Steinle’s death and by hiring Virginia attorneys is the first attempt to finish this case.

From the beginning, Trump seized on Lopez Sanchez’s immigration status as the motivating factor that caused Ms. Steinle’s death. To this day, President Trump wants us to believe, against statistical evidence, that increased deportation will protect public safety. It is time to set the record straight.
Trump is urging passage of legislation that would turn local police departments into a federal deportation force.

Let’s start with sanctuary. No public policy has been more misunderstood, thanks to unending xenophopic rants spewed in the right wing media. Contrary to the vitriol, sanctuary policies are public safety tools for law enforcement.
President Trump wants us to believe, against statistical evidence, that increased deportation will protect public safety. It is time to set the record straight.

The goal of a sanctuary policy is to encourage undocumented people to report crimes without fear of deportation. Virtually every head of every major U.S. police department supports disentangling local police from immigration enforcement. The Houston and Dallas police chiefs recently wrote that police inquiry into immigration status “will lead to distrust of police and less cooperation from members of the community.”

While no study has calculated the total number of crimes solved by sanctuary policies – several studies, including one from the Journal of Law and Economics, have found no correlation between public safety and increased deportation. There is little dispute that immigrants commit fewer crimes than citizens. And, the Center of American Progress found that sanctuary jurisdictions are actually safer than those without sanctuary policies.
The goal of a sanctuary policy is to encourage undocumented people to report crimes without fear of deportation.

Trump’s anti-sanctuary argument falls further apart with a closer examination of the case against Mr. Lopez-Sanchez. As evidence unfolds, it is becoming increasingly clear that Ms. Steinle’s death, albeit indescribably tragic, was the result of an unintentional and accidental firearm discharge. Lopez Sanchez found a heavy object wrapped in a T-shirt on Pier 14, and as he unwrapped it, the weapon discharged, he told ABC News.

Few believed him at first – especially when Donald Trump was vilifying him as an “illegal immigrant” murderer – but forensic evidence supports Lopez Sanchez. The gun was pointed at the ground at the time it discharged. The bullet ricocheted off concrete, travelling 100 feet before it struck Ms. Steinle. The gun, a Sig Sauer P239, was stolen from a federal agent who kept it in a backpack under a seat in his car – violating a host of federal safety regulations.

Lopez Sanchez is not accused of stealing the weapon. Lopez Sanchez has no prior convictions for theft or violence. Though he spent considerable time in prison, his lengthy sentences were for immigration violations – namely, illegal reentry after a deportation order – a crime which can carry 20 years of imprisonment.

In other words, President Trump has manipulated a tragic accident to justify ending sanctuary policies and call for mass deportation of the undocumented.

Edward R. Murrow, a journalist attacked by the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, declared, “We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason.” Let’s take Murrow’s advice. Sanctuary policies make our communities safer, not more dangerous. Let’s not turn Trump’s xenophobic false narratives into public policy.
Sanctuary policies make our communities safer, not more dangerous. Let’s not turn Trump’s xenophobic false narratives into public policy.

Francisco Ugarte is the managing attorney of the San Francisco Public Defender’s Immigrant Defense Unit. He is one of the attorneys representing Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez.

Don’t let Trump exploit an accident to foment hate

A ‘Dangerous Felon’ Who Was Never Convicted of a Violent Crime

-
0

By Matt Gonzalez

Special to 48hills

Two years ago, Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez was arrested for the death of Kate Steinle on San Francisco’s popular waterfront. The case gained national attention as then-candidate Donald Trump exploited Lopez Sanchez’s immigration status to propose sweeping immigration reforms.

The motorcycle accident attorney annapolis md, know the struggles you face. We have been to the homes and hospital rooms of accident victims like you. We have firsthand knowledge of uphill battles against lost wages, medical bills, motorcycle replacement costs and the pain and suffering of recovery.

Although the shooting appeared to be an accident — the fatal bullet ricocheted off the ground — conservative commentators repeatedly used Lopez Sanchez’s seven prior felony convictions to argue he was a serious criminal.

First, all of Lopez Sanchez’s narcotics convictions are more than 20 years old. They occurred in Washington State: three “possession” and one “possession with the intent to sell” offenses.

The most serious of these, the 1993 possession for sale offense, was a weak case. Police allegedly observed Lopez Sanchez in a transaction, but when was arrested, he had no money in his possession. Police discovered a piece of plastic in his jacket containing material that later field-tested positive for cocaine. Lopez Sanchez pled guilty to a probationary sentence — not knowing the conviction would ultimately cause him to spend 18 years in federal prison.

The conviction had magnified consequences, since federal immigration laws categorize any drug sale (or possession for sale) as an aggravated felony making any illegal reentry to the U.S., much more serious. He was now labelled a “drug trafficker” under the law, even though the case was minor, thus equating him with those who’ve been deported after serving sentences for murder, rape, and kidnapping. (8 U.S. Code §1326).

As a result, whenever he entered the U.S., Lopez Sanchez faced 20 years in prison just for crossing the border. Not surprisingly, each time he appeared in court, he plea-bargained his cases, for five, six, then seven years when given the chance. Yet, none of these illegal reentry sentences would have been imposed if he didn’t have the “drug trafficking” conviction 25 years ago; otherwise he would have been facing one or two years in jail each time he entered the country.

Similarly, whatever you may think of drug offenses, Lopez Sanchez’s aren’t serious. States like California and Oregon are decriminalizing drug possession, making many of these offenses misdemeanors. Minor sales cases don’t disqualify you for drug treatment either. But in the early 90s, the drug war was in full swing. Lopez Sanchez is one of its casualties.

A research team at Syracuse University found that immigration prosecutions like Lopez Sanchez’s make up more than half of all criminal cases brought by the federal government. The cases are the “low-hanging fruit” of the federal judicial system since the accused rarely contest them – they usually take two court appearances to resolve. By comparison, prosecutors refuse to prosecute nearly half of the white-collar cases referred to them, while they charge 97% of the immigration cases.

As it stands, immigrants comprise the largest growing percentage of inmates in our federal prisons. A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report found that “almost seven in every 10 foreign prisoners in U.S. jails are Mexicans” and that “[m]ost of the prisoners were convicted for immigration offenses (65%).” Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics (Aug 2015) show that nearly 16% of all federal prisoners are Mexican nationals with the number rising to more than 20% when Central and South Americans are included. In total, foreigners make up more than 25% of the U.S. prison population.

Taken together, Lopez Sanchez has spent 18 years in federal prison, plus a year in jail for the convictions from the early 90s. This exceeds the time he ever lived in Mexico as an adult. That’s two decades of imprisonment for non-violent offenses.

Falls are a leading cause of spinal cord damage and traumatic brain injury. Visit Slip And Fall Lawyers Philadelphia to learn more. Your damages may be very significant and you should ensure you get the money you need to move on with your life after a fall.

Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez is being portrayed on the national stage as a dangerous felon without ever having been convicted of violence.

Matt Gonzalez, chief trial lawyer for the Public Defender’s Office, is representing Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez.

http://48hills.org/2017/07/18/media-misleading-crime/

Troubled Judges Group Holding Up Bail Reform

-
0
Troubled Judges Group Holding Up Bail Reform

By Jeff Adachi

California is on the precipice of overhauling its unjust bail system. Now, a group of judges, currently in apology mode over a party where revelers ridiculed incarcerated people of color, is lobbying for a watered down bail reform bill.

The Judicial Council of California last month sent a six-page letter to the lawmakers detailing its “significant concerns” regarding Senate Bill 10.

If passed, SB 10 would largely eliminate the money bail scheme and replace it with a system in which pretrial release is determined by public safety rather than wealth. Its passage would be a rare victory for fairness in a system that routinely overlooks the poor and people of color. It would implement a risk assessment tool based on empirical data and beef up pretrial services to allow those charged with minor offenses to keep their jobs, housing, and custody of their children.

But the Judicial Council claims in its letter that SB10 would create “an overly burdensome and complicated system.”

While balancing individual liberties, constitutional rights, criminal procedure, and public safety is indeed complicated, there is nothing overly burdensome about taking steps to ensure we do not systematically deprive poor people of their liberty.

The Judicial Council, after all, is responsible for “ensuring the independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice.”

The Council also complains that SB10 will deprive judges of criminal history and other important information needed to decide who goes home and who languishes behind bars. That is simply false. In San Francisco, where risk assessment is already in use, the program explicitly factors in relevant parts of a person’s criminal history in its recommendation. In addition, prosecutors regularly argue for judges to override the empirically-generated recommendation in specific cases of concern.

But now judges are balking at having to state reasons on the record for locking up a person determined to be low risk. This is the height of arrogance, and displays utter indifference to the plight of poor people who have not yet been convicted of a crime.

Finally, the Judicial Council defends the status quo by stating the courts lack the resources to implement the changes to meet the bill’s timeline. But it’s ludicrous to argue that because some counties don’t have existing pretrial services offices, we should just continue to jail everyone. The answer is to move toward something more data driven, humane, cost-effective, and protective of constitutional rights.

Unsurprisingly, the bail bonds industry is cheering the Judicial Council’s letter.
The Council, a bloated policymaking body that spends thousands of dollars lobbying on behalf of judges, is out of touch with the people who would be most affected by bail reform.

That was apparent in a story that broke last week about a Halloween party hosted by the Judicial Council. Photos showed employees in the Council’s Sacramento office wearing orange jumpsuits, dark makeup, and in one case a dreadlock wig and Hannibal Lecter mask.

It should be stated that the non-black revelers who darkened their faces weren’t judges. But the Judicial Council thought their antics were impressive enough to give them an award for Best Decorations. These decorations included a ghoulish doll sitting on a toilet in a solitary cell while being watched on closed circuit television by a guard. The photos were posted on the organization’s intranet before disappearing without explanation. A black longtime employee’s complaints about the debacle went unanswered. Many African American staffers further complained that the Council bungled this year’s Black History Month, refusing to allow a field trip to a museum’s Black Panthers exhibit and banishing the annual celebration to the basement.

There’s nothing funny about mass incarceration. A system riddled with profound racial disparities, in which those who can’t afford bail plead guilty just to get out of jail, is no laughing matter. Rather than living up to its mission of ensuring impartial justice, the Judicial Council is serving as an obstacle to true reform.

Road Rage Incident Results in Acquittal, Dropped Charges

-
0
Road Rage Incident Results in Acquittal, Dropped Charges

San Francisco—A roadside scuffle between a Safeway delivery driver and an off-duty Muni driver resulted in the deliveryman being cleared of all charges, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today.

Jurors on Friday acquitted Irving Villalta, 22, of vandalism and destroying a cellular device to prevent a call to 911. The jury hung 11-1 for acquittal on hit and run and battery charges. Those charges were dismissed by prosecutors Wednesday.

The case stemmed from a March 7 incident on Lake Merced Boulevard, in which the off-duty Muni employee alleged Villalta “brake-checked” him, causing him to slam into the back of Villalta’s Safeway truck. The man further told police that Villalta banged on the windows and doors of his Honda Accord and, when he exited the car, threw him up against the vehicle and punched him several times. The motorist also accused Villalta of grabbing his cell phone from his hand, stomping on it, and briefly stealing it before giving it back and driving away without exchanging information. Since the car was damaged, he had to get a motor trade quote to see how much he would need to cover his car.

But evidence at trial revealed a much different story, said Villalta’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Lauren Schweizer.

Villalta, a Daly City resident with no criminal history, testified the complaining witness cut him off. Villalta briefly changed lanes to avoid the reckless driver then merged back into his original lane several cars in front of the Honda. A short time later, the Honda was behind him again, even though he had a cheap van insurance but effective. When Villalta stopped his truck, the complaining witness’ vehicle struck him from behind.

Villalta approached the car to exchange information, but the driver did not look up from his phone. Villalta knocked on the Honda’s window, but the driver continued to ignore him. Finally, the motorist exited the car and began taking photos, but continued to ignore Villalta’s requests to talk.

When the complaining witness put his phone close to Villalta’s face and began recording him, Villalta objected, telling the man he wasn’t comfortable being filmed and asked again to exchange information. When the man refused to back off, Villalta testified, he swatted the phone to the ground, then picked it up and held onto it, afraid the complaining witness would just continue to record him, violate his personal space, and potentially become violent.

Villalta, who had been the victim of a previous road rage attack, testified that he feared for his safety due to the driver’s strange behavior and admitted to briefly clutching the motorist’s shirt and telling him not to touch him. He vehemently denied punching anyone.

The off-duty Muni driver had no visible injuries and refused medical attention. However, he later filed a claim against Safeway and testified he was seeing a physical therapist for a “cracked back.” His phone, which he accused Villalta of stomping, sustained only minor scratches. Villalta reported the incident to Safeway immediately.

The complaining witness was interviewed by police three different times and gave conflicting accounts of the incident, while Villalta maintained his original version of the story, Schweizer said. Multiple character witnesses testified that Villalta was known for his honesty and communication skills, and he was known as a level-headed mediator when conflicts arose.

Schweizer said Villalta was relieved to have his name cleared.

“Because of this incident, he was put on suspension and was unable to work. He is happy to be back on the job so he can continue to provide financial support to his mother,” she said.

Adachi said the case illustrates how an innocent person can face criminal charges based on an unsubstantiated accusation.

“These false allegations upended Mr. Villalta’s life,” Adachi said. “Fortunately, his public defender was able to give jurors the facts. At the end of the trial, the jury foreperson shook Mr. Villalta’s hand and thanked him for telling the truth.”

###

 

Op-Ed: Proposed Kate’s Law Would Not Have Saved Kate Steinle

-
0

By Matt Gonzalez

Special to the Chronicle

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last week called “Kate’s Law” (HR3004). The bill is named for Kate Steinle, the young woman whose unfortunate death in San Francisco in 2015 has been exploited as a recurrent shibboleth in efforts across the nation to instigate anti-immigrant fervor.

Were it in effect in 2015 however, nothing in this proposed law — which increases maximum sentences for immigrants who re-enter the country illegally after a deportation — would have prevented Steinle’s death. Her death was the result of systemic defects and individual errors that the bill does not address. What the law will do is fill our already overcrowded prisons with nonviolent immigrants.

The bill would do two things:

• Increase the maximum sentence for previously deported people who re-enter the U.S. from two years to 10, and increase the maximum sentences for people who re-enter after being convicted of certain criminal offenses — including for immigration offenses — to up to 25 years.

These law changes have nothing to do with the circumstances preceding Steinle’s death. Had the bill been law in 2015, it would have had no effect on Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, the man accused of causing her death. That’s because Lopez Sanchez already faced a 20-year prison sentence each time he entered the country, based on a minor narcotics conviction from 1993 in the state of Washington — an offense that aggravates any illegal entry he committed (8 U.S. Code §1326).

The facts of this case are largely unknown to the public. Lopez Sanchez didn’t travel to San Francisco voluntarily. He was transferred here by federal authorities, because San Francisco maintained a 20-year-old warrant in a marijuana offense. Lopez Sanchez then appeared in San Francisco Superior Court, where his case was promptly and predictably dismissed and he was released. Alone, unemployed, in a city he did not want to be in, Lopez Sanchez wandered the streets. In statements to ABC-7 news while incarcerated, Lopez Sanchez described picking up an object wrapped in a T-shirt that discharged while he handled it. What is uncontested: He did not know the victim, she was 100 feet away from him when shot, and the single bullet ricocheted off the concrete pier near where Lopez Sanchez was seated. The Sig Sauer .40 caliber automatic pistol, known for having a hair trigger, is documented in hundreds of accidental discharges, even when handled by trained law enforcement.

The firearm should never have been on the streets. The Bureau of Land Management official who left his loaded weapon unsecured in a car that was burglarized has never accounted for his negligence in starting the chain of events that resulted in Steinle’s death.

The frenzy surrounding the House’s passage of this law — and the repeated false assertions that being tougher on immigrants would have averted this tragedy — now threatens Lopez Sanchez’s chances of a fair trial. Yet, none of the tragic events that led to Steinle’s death would have been affected by Kate’s Law. It wouldn’t have prevented Lopez Sanchez’s transfer to San Francisco or subsequent release, nor prevented the negligence and theft that placed a firearm in his path.

For those who want to whip up fear of immigrants, it is politically expedient to cast Lopez Sanchez as dangerous. But the truth is he’s never previously been charged with a crime of violence. He is a simple man with a second-grade education who has survived many hardships. He came to the U.S. repeatedly because extreme poverty is the norm in many parts of Mexico. He risked going to jail so that he could perform a menial job that could feed him. Each time, he came to the U.S. because American employers openly encourage illegal immigration to fill the jobs U.S. citizens don’t want.

Passing Kate’s Law as a response to this tragedy is the legal equivalent of invading Iraq in response to 911 — a preying upon emotions to further a pre-existing agenda. It is a cynical anti-immigrant effort unrelated to Steinle’s death that in no way honors her memory.

Matt Gonzalez is one of the attorneys representing Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, whose trial is scheduled to begin later this month. He is the chief attorney in the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Proposed-Kate-s-Law-would-not-have-saved-Kate-11264771.php#photo-13185030

Public Defender Launches Unit to Combat Booking Bias

-
0
Public Defender Launches Unit to Combat Booking Bias

San Francisco—Police booking charges play an outsized role in creating the San Francisco justice system’s dramatic racial disparities, a new study reveals, prompting San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi to announce today the formation of a team to scrutinize the early charges for bias.

The Pretrial Release Unit, comprised of two deputy public defenders and one investigator, will launch Oct. 1. The team will intervene between arrest and arraignment, reviewing police reports and conducting preliminary investigations to ensure cases have not been overcharged. In appropriate cases, the team will argue for bail reduction or pretrial release. The program, modeled after Miami-Dade Public Defender’s pioneering and money-saving Early Representation Unit, will be only the second program of its kind nationwide. The City of San Francisco has approved funding of $335,557 for the first fiscal year.

The formation of the new unit was prompted by the results of a study by the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice, released to the public today. The review of 10,753 complete case records between 2011 and 2014 from the Public Defender’s Office revealed that people of color receive more serious charges at the initial booking stage, reflecting decisions by the San Francisco Police Department and other booking agencies. Those booking charges create a ripple effect that follows defendants through the justice system and results in more jail time and more serious convictions for African Americans.

Booking decisions are made by a police officer’s initial impressions, often before all the evidence has been gathered or witnesses interviewed. It is then sent to the district attorney, who recommends charges. Public defenders are not assigned to the case until arraignment, after a person has spent up to five days in custody. This program would allow poor defendants the same access to early representation as defendants who can afford to hire private attorneys.

“The Pretrial Release Unit is preventive care for a system infected with bias,” Adachi said. “Instead of trying to stamp out the problem once it has taken hold, we will step in right after booking, start our investigation, and file a bail motion within eight hours.”

Other key findings of the groundbreaking report show that black defendants are held in pretrial custody for an average of 30 days, or 62 percent longer than whites. Cases involving black defendants also take an average of 90 days to resolve, 14 percent longer than those involving white defendants.

Defendants of color are also convicted of more serious crimes than white defendants, the report found. Black defendants are convicted of 60 percent more felony charges than white defendants and 10 percent fewer misdemeanors. Latino and white defendants have similar felony conviction rates, but Latinos are convicted of 10 percent more misdemeanors and receive probation sentences that are 55 percent longer than whites.

The report found that the ripple effect put in motion by booking charges accounted for 72 percent of the conviction gap between black and white defendants in misdemeanor cases and 46 percent in felony cases. Criminal history accounted for 1 percent and 33 percent, respectively, while demographic and other factors accounted for the rest.

“Overcharging cases has real, human consequences,” Adachi said. “Today’s booking charges turn into tomorrow’s criminal histories, preventing people from achieving their potential in life.”

The report’s executive summary can be found here. The full report can be found here. 

###

SF Public Defender Immigration Unit Launches Today

-
0
SF Public Defender Immigration Unit Launches Today

San Francisco—An innovative legal team fighting deportation on behalf of local residents locked in immigration detention launches today, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced.

Three deputy public defenders from the newly-implemented Immigration Unit will report to Federal Immigration Court at 630 Sansome St. at 1 p.m. today to meet their new clients and represent them before the Judge Scott Simpson. Studies have shown that detained immigrants with attorneys are six times more likely to win their cases than those without legal representation.

Adachi noted that in the 100 days since President Donald Trump signed his executive order expanding immigration enforcement priorities, immigration arrests have risen 38 percent nationwide.

“Mass deportation is against our core values as Americans and San Franciscans,” Adachi said. “Due process still means something in this country and we are not going to let the federal government ship off our friends and neighbors without a fight.”

Unlike in criminal court, non-citizens in immigration detention do not have the right to court appointed counsel, explained Francisco Ugarte, managing attorney of the Public Defender’s Immigration Unit. Approximately half of the 1,500 detained immigrants with court dates in San Francisco have been in the U.S. for more than a decade. More than 50 percent have one or more close family members who are citizens.

“These are longtime residents who work, attend school, and contribute to our city,” Ugarte said. “Without this program, most would be forced to defend themselves in court against trained government lawyers.”

Under a deal negotiated between Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer and Mayor Ed Lee in March, the Public Defender’s Office used $200,000 in salary savings to hire three new attorneys and one paralegal through the end of this fiscal year. Each attorney in the new unit will represent approximately 50 clients.

The new program makes San Francisco only the third public defender’s office to offer legal representation for immigrant detainees in removal proceedings. New York City and Alameda County have similar programs.

Case Dismissed Against Unarmed Man Shot By Police

-
0
Case Dismissed Against Unarmed Man Shot By Police

San Francisco— Criminal charges against an unarmed man shot on the steps of his home by San Francisco police officers investigating a noise complaint were dropped today, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced.

The dismissal by prosecutors is the latest step in the legal journey of 43-year-old Sean Moore, a mentally ill man who was seriously wounded Jan. 6 after officers shot him in the groin and abdomen during a confrontation. Moore underwent multiple surgeries and was charged with numerous felonies alleging he attacked the officers.

On April 25, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ross threw out eight of the 10 counts, noting he was dismissing the charges because the two rookie officers, Kenneth Cha and Colin Patino, were acting outside the scope of their duties when they remained on Moore’s property after Moore declined to be questioned. Cha fatally shot a different man earlier this month.

Moore was released on his own recognizance May 4 in light of Ross’ ruling. He faced a single felony count, battery with serious bodily injury, for allegedly punching one of the officers after the officer hit him twice with a baton. He also faced a misdemeanor charge for allegedly violating a restraining order by banging on a wall.

Today’s dismissal comes one day after a California appeals court denied the San Francisco District Attorney’s writ—a request for extraordinary review—of Ross’ ruling. The appellate court also rejected prosecutors’ request to stay Moore’s trial, which was required to commence before May 22. Though the writ was denied, the District Attorney has filed an appeal of Ross’ ruling. If granted, prosecutors intend to refile charges against Moore.

Adachi said the District Attorney’s decision to appeal Ross’ ruling showed that prosecutors will go to great lengths to try to justify a police shooting of an unarmed citizen on the steps of his home.

“The District Attorney has gone to extraordinary lengths to justify an unlawful use of force by police. Unfortunately, the same level of advocacy is not extended to the victims of police violence,” Adachi said. “It calls into question whether the District Attorney’s Office is unbiased enough to fairly investigate officer involved shootings in San Francisco.”

Moore’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Brian Pearlman, said he was pleased by the dismissal and expects the District Attorney’s appeal to be unsuccessful.

“The District Attorney is apparently willing to fight to the bitter end in order to prosecute an unarmed citizen shot by police, despite a judge finding that officers were violating his rights and trespassing on his property when they attacked him,” Pearlman said.

###

Judge Tosses Most Charges Against SFPD Shooting Victim

-
0
Judge Tosses Most Charges Against SFPD Shooting Victim

San Francisco—A judge threw out a slew of charges against a man who was shot by San Francisco Police Department officers while unarmed on the steps to his home, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ross on Tuesday dismissed eight of 10 charges against Sean Moore, including two counts of assault on an officer, two counts of battery with injury, two counts of deterrence by threats, felony resisting arrest causing injury and misdemeanor resisting arrest.

Moore, who has remained in jail since the Jan. 6 shooting, now faces a single felony count, battery with serious bodily injury, for allegedly punching one of the officers after the officer hit him twice with a baton. He also faces a misdemeanor charge for allegedly violating a restraining order by banging on a wall.

Ross noted during Tuesday’s hearing that he was dismissing the charges because the two rookie officers, Kenneth Cha and Colin Patino, were acting outside the scope of their duties when they remained on Moore’s property after Moore declined to be questioned. The officers had been dispatched to investigate a noise complaint.

“The officers effectively became trespassers on Mr. Moore’s property,” said Moore’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Brian Pearlman. “Mr. Moore told them to leave nearly 40 times before they pepper sprayed him, hit him with batons, and ultimately opened fire.”

Moore was shot in the groin and abdomen and has undergone multiple surgeries.

The case has raised questions about appropriate training for officers dealing with mentally ill citizens. Moore lives with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Neither Cha nor Patino had undergone crisis intervention training. Both officers had less than a year of experience on the street, yet were paired together.

It has also exposed problems with San Francisco’s probes of officer involved shootings. The officers gave virtually identical initial statements to investigators after consulting with their shared attorney. They were allowed to watch footage of the encounter and discuss it with their attorney privately before being questioned by investigators.

In a March preliminary hearing, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman called the practice “troubling,” stating, “..the written statements that both of these officers prepared and read during the course of the interview were nearly word-for-word, verbatim, identical to one another. And that suggests a degree of coordination, if not collusion.”

Adachi called on the district attorney to drop the remaining charges against Moore, saying the decision to go forward with the case reflects a deep hypocrisy.

“Earlier this month, the district attorney declined to file charges against officers who shot a different man, Amilcar Lopez-Perez, in the back, stating he couldn’t prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Adachi said. “But in this case, prosecutors have no qualms about trying to further punish a police violence victim even after two judges have called the strength of the case into question.”

Moore’s trial is scheduled for Friday. Pearlman said he will argue for Moore to be released on his own recognizance.

###

1...373839...86Page 38 of 86
© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv