OLD_San Francisco Public Defender's Office

San Francisco, CA – San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi announced today that the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee has recommended a $23.7 million budget for the Public Defender’s Office for fiscal year 2007-08, a $1.4 million increase from fiscal year 2006-07. This comes after Mr. Adachi appeared before the Committee last Wednesday to advocate for additional funding to improve client services and expand administrative capacity.

“This year we really wanted to build our office capacity and level of professionalism,” says Public Defender Jeff Adachi. “We have long been without the administrative support needed to carry out our core functions. In particular, the additions of a human resources manager and an office manager will help us realize new efficiencies and will help equip the office with the resources needed in the years ahead.”

Due to a projected $25 million citywide budget deficit, San Francisco departments were initially asked to submit plans to reduce their budgets by 3%. However, the Public Defender’s Office was successful in not only resisting cuts, but in obtaining the following additional resources:

• Expert Witness Funding: The Public Defender’s expert witness fund was allocated $100,000, a 25% increase from last year. In recent years, the Office’s expert witness fund has remained constant, while the demands of its practice have increased its use of experts. Historically, deputy public defenders had to seek expert witness funding from judges, who often denied their requests. The Office now maintains its own expert witness fund in order to alleviate the need to draft and file written ex-parte motions every time an expert is needed.
• Behavioral Health Court: The Public Defender’s Office will hire one attorney and one paralegal to represent indigent individuals in Behavioral Health Court, an alternative treatment-based court for clients who suffer from severe mental illness. When the court started in 2003, both the District Attorney and Public Defender offices agreed to provide part-time attorneys as part of a pilot program. However, this is the first time the Public Defender’s Office will receive funding specifically designated for the court.
• Investigation Unit: The Public Defender’s Office will hire one senior investigator. The Office has increased the number of attorneys from 70 to 93 over the past 4 years, causing an increase in workload for investigators. Currently, the Office has six attorneys assigned to each investigator.
• Youth Led Initiatives: The Public Defender’s Office will receive additional funding for its MAGIC program to expand work on youth-led initiatives. The MAGIC program is a collaboration of youth and family agencies that works to create positive outcomes for disadvantaged youth. The additional funding will be used to create a teen-council component to enhance MAGIC community mobilization efforts.
• Administration: The Public Defender’s Office will hire a human resource manager and an office manager. These positions are entirely new to the Public Defender’s Office, which has long lacked sufficient administrative capacity to support its functions.
• Technology: The Public Defender’s Office will enjoy a $169,800 boost to enhance its technological capability, which will allow the Office to reduce administrative costs and increase overall efficiency.

The success of the Public Defender’s Office in obtaining a recommendation for additional funding is the result of its tireless advocacy and dedication to building the resources needed to provide their clients with top-notch legal representation. The final budget is scheduled for approval on July 17, 2007.

The mission of the Public Defender’s office is to provide vigorous, effective, competent and ethical legal representation to persons who are accused of crime and cannot afford to hire an attorney. Established in 1921, the San Francisco Public Defender has a long, proud history of providing top-notch representation to its clients, and championing programs that help people turn their lives around.

###

Report Comes On The Heels Of The City Attorney’s Attempt To Expand Gang Injunctions in San Francisco’s Mission And Western Addition Districts

San Francisco, CA – A groundbreaking new report released today by the Justice Policy Institute argues that the billions of dollars spent on traditional gang suppression activities, which include the enforcement of gang injunctions, have failed to promote public safety and are often counterproductive. The report is released less than a week after City Attorney Dennis Herrera appeared in court to seek permanent injunctions against 76 Mission and Western Addition residents alleged to be gang members.

Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies, written by Judith Greene and Kevin Pranis, undertakes an extensive review of the research literature on gangs to clarify persistent misconceptions and examine the effectiveness of common gang control strategies. According to the report, in cities like Los Angeles where gang activity is most prevalent, more police, more prisons and more punitive measures haven’t stopped the cycle of gang violence.

The report describes civil gang injunctions as legal tools “designed to enhance targeted suppression efforts.” According to the report, while “[l]aw enforcement and the media report impressive reductions in crime and fear through the use of gang injunctions… these stories are never buttressed with supporting evidence that meets minimal scientific standards of evaluation.”The City of San Francisco has already secured a permanent injunction in the Bayview-Hunter’s Point District. However, according to Public Defender Jeff Adachi, “Bayview Hunters Point is no less of a war zone than it was last year when the gang injunction was imposed. Only three arrests for violating the gang injunction there have been made, one involving a man who was attending a job fair in the ‘gang zone.’”

“This report only solidifies what we have known and expressed from the start,” said Adachi. This raises grave concerns about the effectiveness of gang injunctions and their value of crime fighting tools. The study shows that gang injunctions do not curb violence and are not effective in steering youth from criminal activity.”

According to Adachi, many in the community fail to understand the practical effects that gang injunctions have on local residents: “The proposed Mission and Western Addition injunctions name three pairs of brothers, who would be prohibited from being together in a 60-block area and cannot leave their home after 10:00pm. More than a few have no current gang affiliations, and some even work as anti-gang counselors. At least two counselors will lose their jobs, since they work in the area and will be unable to associate with former gang members.”

Last Thursday, residents and community leaders from the Mission and Western Addition organized a rally on the steps of City Hall to address these concerns. This report substantiates many of the assertions made at the rally, including:

• Gang members account for a relatively small share of crime;
• The public face of the gang problem is African-American and Latino, but whites make up the largest group of adolescent gang members;
• Gang control policies make the process of leaving more difficult by continuing to target former members after their gang affiliation has ended;
• Heavy-handed suppression efforts can increase gang cohesion and police-community tensions, and they have a poor track record when it comes to reducing crime and violence.

According to Adachi, “Gang injunctions are particularly worrisome since none the people who the City intends to enjoin have actually been adjudged gang members by the court – they have simply been identified by law enforcement as gang members. However, because there is no right to a lawyer, and they cannot afford to hire one, these individuals have no choice but to submit to the injunction.”

The mission of the Public Defender’s office is to provide vigorous, effective, competent and ethical legal representation to persons who are accused of crime and cannot afford to hire an attorney. Established in 1921, the San Francisco Public Defender has a long, proud history of providing top-notch representation to its clients, and championing programs that help people turn their lives around.

###

San Francisco, CA – On the morning of February 7, 2007, three plainclothes police officers approached 39-year-old John Gibson under the mistaken belief that he was a parolee on the run. Gibson, who was seated near Market and 7th Streets, saw three men advance assertively and believed that he was going to be attacked. The three officers – Officers Eric Perez, Oscar Barcena and Benjamin Pagtanac — grabbed Gibson by his arms, who resisted in an attempt to defend himself and his property. In response to Gibson’s defensive actions, one of the officers repeatedly kneed Gibson in the eye causing extensive bruising and swelling to his face.

After arresting Gibson, and realizing that they had arrested the wrong man, the officers charged him with battery on two police officers and resisting arrest. The battered Gibson spent two nights in jail and the District Attorney subsequently filed charges. A San Francisco jury heard the case in a four-day trial, which resulted in Gibson’s acquittal on nine counts of battery on July 6, 2007.

The District Attorney’s case relied on trial testimony by the officers who said that they approached Gibson because they believed he resembled a parolee at large. They further testified that, prior to the arrest, they identified themselves as police officers several times and displayed their badges to Gibson. On the stand, the officers admitted that Gibson was injured during the arrest, but were unable to give a consistent explanation as to how he received his injuries.

According to Gibson, he had no reason to believe that he was being approached by police officers. The plainclothes officers drove up Market Street in an unmarked vehicle and never identified themselves. In addition to Gibson’s testimony, his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Peter Santina, offered evidence that included enlarged photos of Gibson’s eye injuries, and photos of the crew cut parolee who police mistakenly believed that the longhaired Gibson resembled. Says Santina, “Mr. Gibson was not only the victim of mistaken identity by the police, but was also a victim of their brutality.”

No civilian witnesses were called.

The mission of the Public Defender’s office is to provide vigorous, effective, competent and ethical legal representation to persons who are accused of crime and cannot afford to hire an attorney. Established in 1921, the San Francisco Public Defender has a long, proud history of providing top-notch representation to its clients, and championing programs that help people turn their lives around.

###