Judge moves hearings online after threats
A judge who issued a suspended prison sentence to a mentally disturbed man who stabbed an elderly Asian American woman has received death threats and is now hearing cases remotely rather than going to the courthouse, the Bar Association of San Francisco said Tuesday.
Superior Court Judge Kay Tsenin decided not to attend hearings on Friday, the day she was targeted by an angry protest outside the Hall of Justice at 850 Bryant St., the Bar Association said. The 60 demonstrators, mostly Asian Americans, were joined by District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, whose office prosecuted the case.
Daniel Cauich, then 35, stabbed 94-year-old Anh “Peng” Taylor in the abdomen and arm in June 2021 while she was walking with a cane on Post Street. She was in severe pain and had difficulty walking for some time but has recovered.
Cauich was held in custody before pleading guilty in November to attempted murder and other charges. Jenkins’ office sought a 12-year prison sentence, but Tsenin, after hearing from Cauich’s lawyer about his mental state, issued a 10-year sentence and suspended it, allowing him to remain out of prison if he undergoes treatment in the city’s Intensive Supervision Court.
Jenkins, in a March 15 post on X, called the sentence “reckless” and said that “all San Franciscans were left less safe today.” On Tuesday, the Bar Association told the Chronicle that the district attorney was “contributing to an atmosphere of hostility toward local judges.”
The sentence was “well within the bounds of law,” said attorney Mary McNamara, a spokesperson for the Bar Association of San Francisco. She said Cauich suffered from a brain injury, apparently had been hearing voices and attacked his victim at random, with no evidence of racial motivation. He will be under close supervision for five years, subject to searches and will be locked up if he violates the conditions of release, she said.
“A well-respected judge who has given decades of service has been threatened for doing her job,” McNamara said. “This is the moment when we, as citizens, must protect our democracy by protecting our judges. The Bar Association of San Francisco calls on our community to stand up for judicial independence, to speak out against attacks on judges and to demand more of our leaders.”
In response, Jenkins issued a statement denouncing the reported death threats while repeating her criticism of the sentencing decision.
“Although we may disagree with decisions and rulings judges make, like in this case or in the Supreme Court’s gutting of Roe v. Wade, death threats, which occurred in these two situations, are wholly unacceptable and will not be tolerated,” the district attorney said. “My office has opposed this sentencing because we do not believe that it delivers justice for the victim.”
Tsenin and the court declined to comment.
A law professor and expert on prosecutorial ethics said prosecutors should generally refrain from attacking judicial decisions in their cases — but that this case may be a rare exception.
“If the public doesn’t have confidence in the system of justice and the rule of law, you invite anarchy, you invite cynicism,” said Bennett Gershman, who teaches at the Elizabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University in New York.
But the sentence in Cauich’s case appears to be “incredibly soft,” he said, and the district attorney, elected by the people, may have the right or even the duty to speak out, respectfully and reasonably.