Court closure draws fire from public defenders, D.A.
Judge calls move safety precaution; attorneys call it ‘drastic’ measure
SAN JOSE » In response to the Bay Area’s largest city imposing a curfew to quell rumored looting plots, the Santa Clara County Superior Court closed its doors Monday as a safety precaution, drawing fierce objection from public defenders who say their clients, especially indigent ones, stand to suffer the most.
Presiding Judge Deborah Ryan issued the declaration late Sunday, as looting was reported throughout the Bay Area, and just hours after San Jose issued a curfew from 8:30 p.m. to 5 a.m.
The San Jose curfew, a move copied by almost a dozen cities in the region by Monday afternoon, cited “civil unrest following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota,” according to the formal order.
“I do not make this decision lightly,” Ryan wrote in an email to attorneys and court officers and employees, “but with the uncertainty of these times and the curfew that has been imposed, it is necessary for the protection of all to take this action.”
Santa Clara County was the only Bay Area superior court to fully close Monday — Contra Costa County courts opened but ended operations early — but it was among an array of large counties to close their high courts, including Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento.
The state Supreme Court prohibited in-person visits for the day as well.
These decisions were roundly criticized by the Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office, which shortly afterward lodged a literal objection to the court. On Monday, a group of attorneys with the office stood in front of the Hall of Justice in San Jose to oppose the closure because of its immediate impact and the precedent it could set for future closures.
“Our initial reaction was one of anger and frustration, both in terms of the notice and lack thereof, lack of transparency, and lack of compelling reasons for what we think is a really drastic and severe measure to take,” Deputy Public Defender Sajid Khan said Monday.
“When we have this battle between police officers and the citizenry, and police officers actively arresting people, this is the moment when courthouses have to be open and thriving.”
He noted the tranquility of the humble rally on the steps of the courthouse.
“We were out in front of the courthouse, the sun was shining, there was no violence, and we were safe. There was no indication we were in imminent danger,” Khan said. “It emphasized how problematic this move was.”
District Attorney Jeff Rosen joined them in voicing displeasure with the closure.
“We want the courts to be open so that domestic violence victims can get restraining orders against their abusers. We want the courts to be open so that burglary victims can get their property back. We want the courts to be open so that rape victims can have their day in court,” Rosen said in a statement. “The rule of law is an essential business of Santa Clara County.”
Santa Clara County court officials said that the closure Monday was a one-day order, and that they would continue to “closely monitor circumstances in Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose and continue to act in the best interests of our community and public safety going forward.”
The San Jose curfew could last as long as seven days — which would take it through Sunday — under the local emergency declaration made over the weekend.
For the defense attorneys, the court closure elicited particular concern in light of COVID-19 emergency measures instituted since March by the California Judicial Council, the rule-making body for the state Superior Court system, that have broadly curtailed court access and extended judicial timelines.
Among the most contentious were temporary extensions to arraignment and speedy trial deadlines, which critics say disproportionately affect poor defendants
since they can’t afford bail and are more severely impacted by extended jail stays before they can challenge their initial charges or mount an argument for lower bail.
Under the sweeping court orders, the emergency measures stay in effect until 90 days after the end of the state of emergency, which was declared by Gov. Gavin Newsom in early March.
That indefinite expiration is why Khan and his colleagues see the closure order in Santa Clara County, despite its limited one-day parameter, as a troubling harbinger.
“We now see exactly what we were concerned about, this slippery slope of using nebulous terms like ‘public safety’ to diminish rights,” Khan said. “If they close today, what stops them from doing it tomorrow, or for the next six weeks?”
The Judicial Council also green-lit the rapid expansion of remote and videoconference hearings, and instituted an emergency $0 bail schedule for misdemeanor
and low-level felony charges, in an attempt to keep jails from needlessly taking on inmates and increasing virus outbreak risks in county custody facilities.
But the execution of that emergency bail schedule has been uneven or mishandled, according to the public defender’s office.
The office alleges that the sheriff’s office, which operates the jails, has been improperly holding defendants arrested who are eligible for $0 bail, and in many cases is transporting them to the Elmwood jail in Milpitas, where they are housed before being released.
The sheriff’s office asserts that it has been complying with the emergency bail order, and that any latency between booking and jail release is a function of paperwork processing or mandated checks for any additional holds or active warrants for a defendant.